Billy Wilder is credited with coining the now common expression “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty.” The adage accepts that perfect vision is 20/20 and hindsight is an ability to reflect thoughtfully on the past to see perfectly what was done and what might have been done differently to affect different outcomes. A comparable expression is “If I knew then what I know now, I would have done it differently". Hindsight can be exasperating, always second guessing what preceded, generating regret and compounding disappointment. That's when someone might say, “hindsight sucks.” However, hindsight can also be instructive. It can provide the opportunity to review prior steps and actions with a view to changing current and future attitudes, practices and procedures.
A couple of readers have recently questioned why Paul and Zabeth would place a new baby on the floor when there are two small boys moving around. Their statement posed as a question went beyond pointing to the recklessness of the action to suggesting it was lame explanation for a child's injury and therefore likely untrue. A couple of respondents have written to say it is not uncommon in their homes to lay an infant on the floor, thereby dismissing the notion that this was remarkably rattlebrained. But here is my point today. If Paul and Zabeth view the past two and one half years through the lens of hindsight, I am sure they will find that “Hindsight explains the injury that foresight would have prevented.” If they were faced with the same situation today but with the knowledge of probabilities, they would not choose to place their infant daughter on the floor in the same place at the same time.
Hindsight is virtually synonymous with the history of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. If the MCFD has not reflected retroactively then official reviews have done it for the Ministry or for the boss, the ruling political party, and arrived at scores of recommendations for improvements to the way the Ministry operates. An Irish blessing contains the wisdom that suits the Ministry I think. “May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, the foresight to know where you are going, and the insight to know when you have gone too far.” In case it has not occurred to enough people yet, I am saying publicly that the Ministry has gone too far with respect to their treatment of the Bayne children.
Case in Point: In the comment section of my post entitled "Changed My Mind" dated Saturday May 29, 2010 I answered a query by an Anonymous writer concerning Glutaric Aciduria and a reference was made to celiac disease evidence in both sides of the family, Paul's and Zabeth's. Anonymous replied saying that all three children had been tested for celiac and the results were negative. This statement was news to Paul and Zabeth, who are constantly finding things out about their children, after the fact and having to ask for disclosure that should be automatic to the parents of these children. Read the exchange. And then think about this kind of treatment.
Very interesting that someone with knowledge of the children (ie, case, file, etc) has posted on here about the celiac disease.
ReplyDeleteHindsight is a wicked tool to correct future mistakes, but one also needs strong critical thinking skills to apply the hindsight of one situation to others and adapt as necessary. Just an observation
True.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about Hindsight to correct the future.
Hindsight informs some observers, critical thinkers, that the new ACT should never have been written and legislated, and rather that the old one should have been retuned.
I was thinking on my drive in to work this morning about someones comment on one of the recent posts stating (paraphrased) "a lot of people leave their infant on the floor while they leave the room in presence of another child, however briefly, so that makes it normal."
ReplyDeleteTo play devil's advocate, just because something has become normalized does not make it OK. Our society has MANY examples of that (ie, speeding).
It was not ok to leave this little girl on the floor - in her condition(age etc), with rambunctious brothers playing nearby. A removable offence? NOT one bit.
Now to comment on the "new act". I wonder, has child protection become better or worse under the new act and risk assessment models compared to the previous one?
ReplyDeleteHave things regressed, or as the global influences on child protection degraded thus causing a lot of the current concerns with how the services function? Has to be a combination of an act which provides a lot of power, and global/environmental factors which alter how CPS can practice.
My observation is that CW and similar respondents attempts to misdirect attention off MCFD and changing the focus of examination of this blog back to the parents.
ReplyDeleteThe failings of the Baynes focus on one fleeting incident of injury.
The failings of not just MCFD, but an entire child protection industry that the Baynes case serves to expose, are what is under examination in this blog.
The hindsight observation is being made that this current process is not benefitting the children. In fact, this case serves as far more serious example of ongoing abuse towards three children with life-long ramifications, that dwarfs the minimal effect that this short-term injury towards one child represents.
The children's rights are also being abused, as they are not be allowed to spend more time with their parents during the process of litigation. Who is setting a limit of 6 hours per week and saying they fully comply with CFCSA rules and best interest of the children?
Hindsight for MCFD should be that removal of Bethany and the two boys should not have occured first, a very temporary supervision order should have been used instead. In the month that elapsed where an RCMP investigation determined no basis for charges existed, MCFD should have deferred to that decision and returned the children and apologized to the Bayens just as the RCMP apologized.
This is an example of a policy change that should arise from careful review of this case.
Why no one is asking this type of question instead of pointlessly speculating and hinting that leaving a child on the floor is abuse is beyond me.
My observation over the past 5 years is that MCFD uses hindsight only to further reduce their liability in the eyes of the public and to keep their budget maintained as high as possible.
For example, what steps does, and has, MCFD taken to reduce the time in care of children? Fewer children are being removed it seems, but time in care and cost per family, and poor outcomes seems to be rising.
---
Take a look at another case of a shaken baby diagnosis in Delta that happened from 2005 to 2009 and tell me if hindsight has improved MCFD's methods for the Baynes.
In this case, a child fell off a chair, bumped her head on the floor and eventually died. The caregiver was nearby but did not witness the accident, but the three other siblings did see it. http://rahmanchildren.com/site/ MCFD pursued the parents relentlessly by first "diagnosing" shaken baby syndrome, and used that as a basis to remove the other three children.
The extraordinary efforts of the Ministry to villify the Rahman's family was successfully resisted, but only over a four year period did this family's efforts finally paid off and they now have their children back.
The site does not appear to be maintained, but it exists as a warning to other parents who find themselves butting heads with MCFD. This terrible "process" is the punishment MCFD consistently and successfully uses against parents, but the public is generally not made aware of these monumental battles because of "privacy" concerns and not enough parents going public.
In focusing on careful hindsight examination, questions need to be formulated in much the same manner as inquiries into the deaths of children in care, with conclusions reached and recommendations made.
Anyone suggesting in hindsight, that leaving a child on the ground falls under the umbrella of a protection matter, needs to describe to me what list exists citizens are expected to observe and report such atrocities, and so they can prevent and avoid inflicting such "abuse."
With parents so educated, one would think that injuries to children and removals would drop.
I don't think anyone said leaving the child on the ground is a child protection matter. All I said was its not OK to leave the infant on the floor near older more active brothers - accidents happen. Hindsight.
ReplyDeleteAgain, RCMP not pressing charges does not affect the CFCSA guiding SW's to have concerns enough to go forward with families. No RCMP charges does not prove innocence. How often have people been known to be guilty, only for RCMP/courts found no guilt simply due to lack of evidence - this is not a comment on this family (Baynes), but RCMP charges in general.
FYI - "poor outcomes" may or may not be on the rise, but what is on the rise is media coverage (including blogs - very much no offence to you, Ron!)
I don't want to assume something untrue from your last comment so permit to ask you, CW, in your opinion, is the increased coverage a positive or a negative feature?
ReplyDeleteTo Anon 8:40am - quote "that dwarfs the minimal effect that this short-term injury towards one child represents"
ReplyDeleteI'm extremely curious about what you mean ... it sounds like you are profoundly familiar with this case ... however, how can anyone mimimize the effects of vision impairment, global delay, and cerebral palsy??? which are the "minimal effect" that baby B now has to live with ...
Increased media coverage?
ReplyDeletePositive AND negative. Positive in that flaws need be pointed out. Negative in that the media rarely shows all the positive changes which have been made. Or can one assume there aren't good changes/social workers due to there being no media coverage to prove it? I guess this is a case of "no/little evidence isn't evidence in itself that it doesn't exist."
It seems that the ministry's damage control team is working at full steam here. CW said that no criminal charge laid does not mean that one is not guilty. Does it mean that parents have to be subjugated under a much low subjective scrutiny of SW, who have the incentive, the power and the financial resources to create more cases to substantiate the "child protection" industry? Does the presumption of innocence apply in CFCSA? Not in reality, certainly not in CW's mind. Applying this logic, everyone will be guilty of child abuse if lack of evidence is insufficient for authorities to stand down. This clearly reflects one of the flaws of this witch-hunt like oppressive "child protection" system.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if there are so many good changes taken place, why are there so many oppressed parents complaining? Why using delay tactics on the Baynes to delay a fair hearing for so long? Why child removal authority is often abused by estranged spouses, police and malicious parties? Why children receiving "services" are seriously injured or killed? Why children are used as pawns to beat parents into submission? Why removed child's view is seldom heard in court despite CFCSA specifically says that court should hear it? Why SW do not allow interviews to be audio or video recorded?
The foregoing are just the tip of an iceberg in this corrupted temple.
If you are on the receiving end of "services", do you think that it develops or destroys your family?
Empirical evidence demands a verdict from the people, not from service providers.
To anonymous 3:59pm
ReplyDeleteMe and my child attended Kent's birthday party at a church for Kent October 18, 2009.
Bethany, Zabeth, myself and my child were petting the bunnies, and I took several dozen photos.
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean about vision impairment? Cerebral palsy? Where are you getting this information? What exactly is "global delay" ?
Bethany was walking, happy, smiling, fully engaged at the party, interacted fine with my child, and was clearly very attached to Zabeth. Bethany looks pretty normal to me.
The below comments are not in regards to the Baynes family.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:18 - I've said from the beginning measurable, clear evidence is/should-be required for child removals. Evidence is disclosure from parent, child, or other professional (medical, psychological/psychiatry, video etc etc etc).
Presumption of innocence? Certainly, until clear evidence is gathered.
People can record audio/visual of SW interviews if they so wish. The only person who risks breaking confidentiality in that case would be the parent themselves. There is no policy to suggest otherwise.
The fact there are problems has nothing to do with good changes being made. As I've suggested recently, more coverage equals more discussion of the problems at hand. I know there is great social work being done that no one ever hears about. More media coverage is both good and bad.
Anon 11:18, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my comments to suit your agenda. I can't be any more clear than above.
I'm amazed that you recall Bethany as walking in Oct ob 2009. She didn't start walking independently until the end of January, 2010, at the age of 2 1/2 - how old was your child? I'm guessing you must be an expert, far more experienced than the eye specialist who has diagnosed Bethany with a visual impairment, the neurologists who have diagnosed her with cerebral palsy - as she walks, she lurches, and fists her hands - but you probably know about that. She has a speech impairment - mimics great, but has great difficulty articulating, and is months and months behind. She receives extensive therapies, and will probably require an aide in school for a great part of her young life. You are right - she smiles all the time, she is a very happy, settled little girl. And I'm thrilled that she is so happy with her mom. I just think it is inconscienable to minimize these injuries. Thank God she is so happy, so settled, and so sure she is loved. It will help her immensely as she battles through her little life.
ReplyDeleteTo anon 11:33
ReplyDeleteBethany will be 3 years old in August, she has only just learned to walk in January 2010 so she was NOT walking last October. I would know, I was her caregiver. She could take supported steps but she did not walk independantly. Now she is walking and must use leg braces in order to do so. Vision impairment has been a part of and will continue to be a part of Bethanys life forever. That is what happens when the left side of the brain gets bruised. (as in Bethanys case)She was diagnosed by pediatric ophthamologists.
Global Development Delay is a term used to explain children that are delayed in all areas of their development as Bethany is. These children need various services as early as possible to help them reach their full potential. Bethanys Cerebral Palsy was diagnosed in Jan 2009 by a neurologist.
Of course she was a happy smiling toddler at the party. Thats part of her personality. And of course she was "fully engaged" as you say. Why wouldnt she be? Special needs children are often just as happy as any other child.
And nobody questioned her bond with her mother. And what exactly is "normal" ? We dont think of her as anything but!
It is sad to hear of such deterioration of the health and wellbeing of the children since they have been in care.
ReplyDeleteAs a very interested observer, I do not have any such access to any inside information as it would appear some commenters seem to have.
From my memory and the October 2009 party photos that that included Bethany, she didn't have braces or glasses then. From the photos and my memory, Bethany was walking with Zabeth just fine without braces. In several other photos Bethany is standing over the cage petting the bunnies beside me and my child.
From my point of reference, my son was walking at ten months, my other child at 14 months. My first daughter preferred crawling, and I as a doting parent preferred to carry her, so she didn't walk without support until about 20 months. She is now an A student in school. The most recent child walked right at about 12-14 months and has never stopped moving since.
Bethany being aged 2 years at the point I saw her, my observation over the few hours of the party is that she appeared fine to me, there were no outward indications of impairment of any kind, certainly nothing that would prompt me to ask about her health.
I gather from past posts that all three children have developmental similarities if one is talking about milestones, weight and other markers. One boy has vision impairment and sports a pair of glasses. It also appears premature birth is an issue with some or all of the children.
I understand also from this blog that the boys in particular weigh less now than when they were removed. I've seen the pictures presented in court of the appalling bruises on Bethany's arm and the untreated ear infection and finger injury of the boys. This raises my concern of the quality of foster care in spite of the media attention on this case.
This diagnosis of cerebral palsy in January 2009 is interesting news that I have not heard before, not even from testimony of in court. I just searched and none of these issues are previously mentioned in this blog.
Were the parents notified of the diagnosis at this time? I as a parent would be requesting to be present at all doctor examinations and to be presented with all medical records.
Am I hearing this correctly, that the initial specialists including Dr. Colbourne did not diagnose something such as serious sounding as cerebral palsy, and it took more specialists a further 14 months while Bethany was in care of the Ministry to be diagnosed with conditions that seem to underscore the Ministry position Bethany suffers from shaken baby syndrome?
I seem to recall that in April 2009 when CBC ran a story about Bethany, the issue of glutaric aciduria originated from concerns of a foster parent, but there was no mention of a cerebral palsy diagnosis that you say was discovered four months earlier.
Another story from a UK Journalist December 30th, 2009 from Christina England had an interesting observation that in the many visits to doctors by the Baynes, powerful medicines such as Domperidone were prescribed to both Bethany and Zabeth -- who was also breastfeeding the child, served to increase dosage of this drug, whose side effects are also similar to SBS. See http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/134552
The writer seems to allude doctors simply covered their collective behinds to avoid a medical lawsuit by throwing their support behind a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis.
My own interest in MCFD affairs originates from several years ago where a malicious report claimed my children were abused, but in the final analysis a specialist finally diagnosed an issue to do with premature birth that later resolved itself.
Years later, yet another malicious report to MCFD resulted in a risk assessment, where the investigator populated the document from medical history listing only the allegations, but not the final diagnosis that proved the original reports were false and malicious. The investigator ignored all current medical information because it was postive.
I am beyond stunned and amazed that one can minimize brain injury, brain bleeds, detached retinas, skull fracture, broken femur, and broken arm and the resulting cerebral palsy, global delay, and visual impairment and in the next breath mention an "unexplained" (although investigated)"appalling" bruise, an ear infection that definitely WAS treated (and proven) and a scrape on a finger from falling on a patio ... and to hear from Mr Ferris twice in one comment that it was just a "bump", just a "bump" ... I'm so horrified at the lack of caring of the original injuries, and the twisting of logic to deflect their consequences that I don't even know how to respond ...
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to keep track of the Anonymi. Yet to the two named at June 2, 2010 8:22 and 12:14 let me speak to one aspect of your recital of Baby B's physical conditions. Each of you make reference to the sight impairment. I tend to place less credence in other remarks you make when you throw out the alarmist remarks without the qualification you will now read. With the medical reports of Dr. Jane Gardiner in front of me now, I will inform you and the other readers of the following. The bracketed areas are my explanations.
ReplyDeleteOf her November 6, 2007 examination of B. Dr. Gardiner wrote that she could not convince herself that the girl could see. She did respond to bright lights but did not follow the OKN drum reliably in either horizontal or vertical direction. Dr. Gardiner did not see any significant strabismus (eyes not properly aligned). The anterior segment was normal. A fundus (the interior surface of the eye, opposite the lens, and includes the retina, optic disc, macula and fovea, and posterior pole ) examination was normal on the right. On the left she still had a subhyaloid hemorrhage just temporal to the macula (an oval-shaped highly pigmented yellow spot near the center of the retina ). She wrote “it was my impression that this young girl was not appropriately visually attentive for her age. I will make arrangements for her to see Dr. Carey Matsuba.”
Dr. Gardiner examined the girl numerous times following that. Of her April 2008 observation she wrote, “her eyes looked normal. There have been no concerns with respect to her vision. Her development is delayed but progressing. She did see Dr. Matsuba in the Visual Impairment Program earlier today and he felt that her vision was good.”
With regard to an appointment on January 6, 2009 Dr Gardiner wrote, “On examination today, her vision was central, steady and maintained in both eyes. She was very visually attentive. There was no evidence of strabismus. She did have evidence of stereopsis (commonly referred to as depth perception - a good thing) on the Lang test (The Lang Stereotest was created to simplify stereopsis screening in children. It is based on two principles: random dots and cylindrical gratings.) The eye movements are full. There was no afferent pupil defect (no optic nerve anomalies; both eyes constrict and dilate in unison with respect to light). The slit lamp examination showed no abnormalities. Her fundi were normal. The optic nerves looked healthy and the macula was normal. A cycloplegic refraction showed a mild hyperopic astigmatic refraction error which would be in keeping with her age. It was my impression that young girl had a normal eye examination. I would be happy to review her in a year...”
Thank you Ron for that report. As a friend of one of the caegivers, I am thrilled that Bethany's eyes continue to improve. I also know that Bethany is part of the Visual Impairment Program at SunnyHill Hospital, that Dr. Matsuba had previously diagnosed her with Hononomous Hemianopia (I can't remember if it was left-sided or right-sided)and that they are not sure about certain aspects of Bethany's visual field ... if there are still any deficits ... she is still being assessed ... again, I think it is great that Bethany continues to improve.
ReplyDeleteFascinating that one can be labelled an alarmist for stating concerns that doctors/ specialists/ therapists all have had, and continue to have, with regards to a child ...
ReplyDeleteInteresting that, while Dr. Gardiner's report is positive with regards to the baby girl, it doesn't remove the seriousness of the injuries that the baby received. I also find it curious that this doctor's report is being quoted on behalf of the parents, and yet other doctors, whose reports don't give such positive diagnosis, are construed as being in league and under the influence of the MCFD
What is of value to all of us is not only an understanding of the seriousness of the injuries first assessed, but also the encouraging progress that is observed today and as well an accurate prognosis from medical professionals who have first-hand knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThanks anon 8:12, 11:31 and 11:41.
ReplyDeleteI have gone through my day today after reading anon June 2 11:53 with a sick feeling in my stomach. I am appalled and in just plain shock after reading what he/she had to say.
To address the part about deteriorating in care. What deterioration? Bethany has been in care almost her whole life. How can she have deteriorated in care when this is the only place she has been? And the reason for her being in care is because a very sick baby was brought to Childrens Hosptital and was found to have a brain bleed, hemmoraging behind her eyes and needed a shunt placed immediately so she didnt die! There was also a fractured skull, a fractured arm and leg and she was very underweight. When this tiny, blind baby was discharged I took back the blanket that was on her to change her diaper and put a clean sleeper on her. I burst into tears when I saw what a tiny, pathetic little baby was under that blanket. All I could think was how could someone hurt such a little baby? and Why? Remember at this point that I have NO knowledge of parents at all, I dont know them, I dont know what they look like, what they do for a living, nothing. I am seeing an injured child, I am dealing with police, social workers and many many Doctors, nurses and therapists.
The nurses and hospital social worker were great, they told me, feed, feed, feed her, shes been starved. And she has been traumatized so she will need kangaroo care 24/7. And that is what we did.
So if shes deteriorated since being placed in care as that tiny fragile little baby then she must be in really bad shape now!
I feel sick that all of these injuries seem not to play a part in the reason of the removal of these children. Bethany is lucky to be alive!!
And to address your comment:
There are no outward indications of impairment of any kind.
What? Are you serious?
This child walks with leg braces. Actually she lurches, CP is a cruel punishment and she doesnt have the ability to control her muscles the way she wants to.
And she is globally delayed, which means that she is delayed in EVERY AREA of her development. These are facts, you wouldnt know, you were not her caregiver, you are not one of her many therapists, you merely observed this child for 2 hours at a birthday party where there was I am sure much more action going on than sitting there with your camera on Bethany!
And yes, I took Bethany to the appointments you refer to Ron. The one with Dr Gardiner had us all feeling really good after all the positive comments. However, there is more to it than that. After the follow up with Dr Matsuba it was decided she would be followed in a visual impairment program as some of her vision issues may return as she grows (and they may not, cross your fingers)
And I may as well address the "appalling" bruise on her arm as well. That happened while she was in our care. She happened to have a visit that day and upon returning home to us we discovered redness on her arm, we questioned the driver, he told us when he picked up the boys from their caregiver to bring them to the visit that little Baden was quite excited to see his sister and as he passed by her to get in his carseat he took her arm and pulled her to himself for a kiss. How sweet is that? However the social worker was notified of the bruise (the next day when it developed into one) and baby saw a Dr that day who said that it seemed likely done by someone with small hands, my children were all at summer camp at that time and ruled out. This was not something done to hurt her, it was an accident. Well actually, it was the fault of a child, the same child who gets blamed for alot of things.......
I would sign in as T the Foster mom but it isnt working, sorry!
Anon T wrote an impassioned comment.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
Anon T's first hand knowledge of Baby B during the first months of her life is significant and undeniable. If anyone knows the child's challenges in these early stages, this woman does. Without question there was love for this child from this foster mom. Over time this child loved foster mom. Nothing I will say will disregard the connection and the affection forged through this devoted care ministry. Good job.
I believe Anon T was careful as she described that she was appalled at Baby B's condition when she first saw her and that because of the reasons she was told for the child being placed in care, she wondered why or how someone, anyone could bring about this outcome for the child. I don't believe that Anon T was alleging now that Paul and Zabeth were guilty of harming their child. She was describing her response at the time given the information she had. (Anon T, you better correct me if I have misread your comment)
It is important to remember that the child's condition by the time Anon T received her was compromised by so many factors, not least of which was her disinterest and inability to feed for some time as part of the presenting reasons for the Baynes consulting doctors and clinics repeatedly for solution. That dysfunction of course had been generated or compounded by the brain bleed and whatever other distresses it caused to this baby's body. The time spent in the hospital was corrective to only a limited degree. Anon T's feelings and emotions notwithstanding, this is not about her but about the child as Anon T says, yet this case of Baby B is also about Paul and Zabeth. Before it is overlooked, permit me to remind readers of the anguish and the fearfulness of the parents as their baby failed to respond to TLC and visit after visit to professionals was inconclusive and unhelpful and then to learn that their baby required surgery, and of course then, the ensuant charges, arrest, child removal and on it went.
Now this is crucial. Medical assessment made three years ago must not be reinterpreted with terms that betray the initial accuracies. Skull radiology did not identify a fractured skull but rather a fracture of widening sutures. In the newborn, the membranous bones of the vault are separated by the intervening sutures. Where the sutures intersect, they widen and assume the shape of fontanelles. The larger anterior fontanelle lies at the intersection of the sagittal, coronal, and metopic sutures and closes by the end of the second year. The posterior fontanelle lies at the intersection of the sagittal and lambdoid sutures and closes before the third month. The most significant growth of the skull occurs along the sagittal and coronal sutures. In B's case the widening would be attributed to the cranial pressure of hemorrhage. Baby B did not have an arm fracture per se. She had a metaphyseal fracture on her left femur, a condition attributable to either accidental or non accidental injury. She was underweight at birth with almost immediate feeding issues that caused Langley Hospital to consider a transfer to Children's Hospital. The accident which the Baynes reported resulted in vomiting and feeding problems and no weight gain for many days.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have observed in photographs and all that I have read in medical reports, Baby B has made noteworthy progress despite the ongoing challenges of her stated delay that typifies her prematurity and recovery from such a seriously compromised beginning. All of us are thankful that she is alive. It is imperative that we do not diminish the gravity of Baby B's initial injury, imperative that we are assertive in our thankfulness for medical and foster parental care that has promoted her development, imperative that we should be adamant that the best interests of these three children now is that they live with their biological parents for the rest of their years of maturation.
Now, not addressing Anon T and quite aside from Anon T's comment, having recognized the above, what is important to state is that there is nothing that any medical professional or social worker or case worker or foster parent can comment with certainty that can discount the real probability that if this child had remained in the care of her own biological parents for the past two and one half years, she would have similarly recovered as she has. And when someone makes a statement that denies that, he or she is making a judgement without foundation upon character and and is assuming liability that even a provincial judge has not yet ruled upon.
Thank you Ron for publishing. I had such an emotional day, especially after reading certain comments that make no sense. Our family is still grieving Bethany as we do with some of our longer term placements when they move on. Thats just some of the tougher parts that come with fostering. But we did get to witness great milestones with Bethany and that part is very rewarding.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely want the best outcome for all of the Bayne children no matter what it may be. And no you didnt misread my comment. I was told what I would be dealing with when we accepted Bethany as our foster child and I had no prior knowledge of the family. I was reacting to what I saw and what I was told only. My focus was on little Bethany and my own family at that time, not blaming parents whom I did not know anything about.
And you are right, we definately have love for this little girl, she will always have a special place in our hearts!
Foster mom T