Wednesday, June 30, 2010

MEDICAL HISTORY PART 3 of 3 / Part 235 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Part 3 of 3
  • Providing it in several parts, this will be as definitive a medical history on the Bayne infant as you will read online.
  • At the start of the MCFD hearing for a continuing care order for all three Bayne children, Judge Tom Crabtree in his wisdom ruled that there would be no ban on information presented during the court proceedings. The medical reports are a component of the submissions presented under cross examination. I have access to this information. Medical testimonies have been heard although not all of them have been ruled as admissible by Judge Crabtree.
  • This is what I have read. I have chosen not to do a narrative but to cite the medical data factually. I RESTATE OR CAPITALIZE A FEW KEY OBSERVATIONS.
Dr. Poskitt / MR: Requested by Dr. David Cochrane, an MR Head Sedation was conducted by the department of radiology at BC Children's Hospital and Dr. Ken Poskitt on October 19, 2007. The impression given was focal injury to the left occipital lobe with associated bilateral subdural fluid collections of increased signal intensity represented protein and old blood. The injury is remote at least three weeks of age or older. Given the size of the extra-axial fluid collections, Dr. Poskitt suspected that the head had been crossing percentiles for a prolonged period of time and head circumference measurements would provide an estimated time of origin for the injury. There was evidence of trauma however mechanism injury was not obvious from MR examination.

Dr. Degruchy / Chest: On October 19, 2007 at Dr. Cochrane's request a Port Ward Chest was performed by the department of radiology at BC Children's Hospital and Dr. Suzanne Degruchy. She noted that there was hazy increased opacity in both lungs which may reflect pulmonary edema. Pleural spaces were clear and the bony thorax was unremarkable. Atelectasis/ hemorrhage was though unlikely.

Child Removal: October 22, 2007 was D-Day for the Baynes, not Deliverance but Desolation. All three children were removed from Paul and Zabeth.

Dr. Hess / Head Ultrasound: October 22, 2007 an Ultrasound Head exam was done at the department of radiology at BC Children's Hospital and Dr. Thomas Hess, finding that there was significant improvement in the size of the bilateral extra-axial collections when compared with the findings from the October 19, 2007 a pre-shunt insertion MRI and the outside cranial ultrasound done in Chilliwack.

Dr Hess / CT Head: On October 23, 2007 at the request of Dr. Colbourne, with reference to a skeletal survey performed on October 19th, 2007 and the outside CT head scan done at Chilliwack General Hospital on October 18, 2007, a NM Bone Flow test was conducted by Dr. Thomas Hess. Dr. Hess understood that the two month old infant with bilateral subdural hematomas and a right parietal skull fracture was under investigation for NAI (Non-accidental injury). The test result was focal increased activity within the left proximal femur which corresponded with bone injury visualized on the recent skeletal survey.

Dr. Culham / Chest, Limbs: On October 31, 2007 at Dr. Colbourne's request the Department of Radiology at BCCH and Dr. Gordon Culham did examinations of the chest, the right elbow and the left femur of the infant Baby B. No bony injury appeared in the chest examination with nothing to suggest new bone formation suggesting costochondral fractures. THE LATERAL VIEW OF THE RIGHT ELBOW SHOWS WHAT APPEARS AS SUBPERIOSTAL NEW BONE BUT IS IN FACT CORTICAL TUNNELLING BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEW BONE ON THE FRONTAL VIEW. WITH THE LEFT FEMUR THERE IS A HEALING FRACTURE AT THE PROXIMAL END OF THE FEMUR INVOLVING THE MEDIAL CORNER AND THE FRACTURE IS HEALING BY ENDOSTEAL SCLEROSIS.

Sorial report: As causes for her distress were sought, the doctor's note MENTIONS THE BROTHER FALLING ON HER a few days earlier but that she had not cried and was okay after that trauma. The parents reported this event.
Dr. Gardiner wrote a letter to Dr. Ebesh dated January 6, 2009 following a routine examination of Baby B who was brought to the appointment by her social worker because the girl is in foster care as her note indicates “after a presumed non-accidental injury.” She indicates that she also last saw Baby B in April 2008 when her eyes looked normal and there were no concerns with respect to her vision. Dr. Gardiner also makes reference to Dr. Matsuba seeing her on this same January 6th appointment and saying that her vision is good. Dr. Gardiner's examination.

There are many more medical follow-up appointments and reports during the past year and one half which are not part of this mini-series the purpose of which was to recount the initial medical observations and findings, relative to the suspicions, the child removal, the risk assessment and the current continuing care order by MCFD.
Many of you are interested in her progress so regarding Baby B's current health status, I relate here the observations of her birth parents.
  1. Social workers have testified that Baby B must wear braces. The Baynes have never seen these on her. She wears sole inserts to correct her arch. She is observed walking better without the inserts.
  2. Baby B has recently been discharged from the Sunny Hill Vision Program as her vision is "the low side of normal". 
  3. Baby B is developmentally behind in her speech and will need speech therapy. 
  4. Baby B understands everything one says to her and responds accordingly. She feeds herself, is now potty training. She loves to read, colour, play ball, dance, sing and clap.
  5. The Ministry has made an affidavit statement that she has cerebral palsy. No such medical disclosure to validate this has been submitted to the Baynes or to the court.


  1. English only please. I cannot publish Comments submitted in Chinese characters or another language without translation. A couple of obscene and porn messages have come this way when submitted to a translator.

  2. This last portion is somewhat sparse compared to the other two blog entries. What is the release date of Bethany from the hospital to the Foster parent?

    In my case, once the children were removed, there was a remarkable "silence" in In terms of information gathering by MCFD in comparison to the time before removal.

    Two months after removal, A HEAL clinic testing for physical damage that was negative, for example, by a Dr. Korn. Three months after that, a psychological test on the kids by a Dr. Korpach which noted severe psychological trauma. (How do kids get straight A's in school if such prior trauma exists?)

    What I don't see is any indication or observation by doctors Bethany cried a lot, if she was collicky, or any reason to start shaking the Baby. Post partum conditions noted for Zabeth? There is also a complete absence of information on the boys which MCFD should have commissioned a complete medical picture before removal on the entire family.

    Would not parents in a stressed condition not only shake their baby violently if upset, but also regularly over-discipline their boys and have marital fights too?

    The point I make is it is my observation MCFD generally is very lazy in terms of researching and looking at cooberating evidence before removal, in case, they come across positive detracting information. They find -one- thing they can rest their case on, and then they basically do nothing but go through the motions of follow-up medical checks, but, very slowly, and stretched out over a long time.

    Foster parents don't like to arrange alternate care for other kids in their foster home, don't like to drive a lot for appointments and sit around and wait at hospitals like biological parents will.

    The time immediately after removal is also the most important time for observing the separated family as a whole. How much time elapsed after the first visit? If "guilt" was decided, when did the offering of services start?

    In putting a picture together of actions of MCFD to validate their prcess and decision is correct, it would also be good to compare RCMP investigative thoroughness with MCFD's. Why, for example, did the RCMP did not give the same weight to the medical evidence as MCFD continues to do?

    In order to provide the best context for presenting the total picture of deciding if MCFD planned the removal by arranging only medical evidence and throwing in the Hoffman's public support, or they did do a thorough job, did the risk assessment that made it clear a supervision order was NOT sufficient, and there was clear evidence of violent treatment by parents towards their children in the past that "could not be addressed" and therefore removal was the only, and a very expensive option".

    I am still not seeing the reasons for removal.
    The absolute best investigative mechanism would have been a short term supervision order to permit very close monitoring to further gather supporting evidence that would reveal any inappropriate parenting.

    Taxpayers have paid so far at least a million dollars in a cocktail of costs that includes foster care, supervision, legal and trial costs, health costs, social worker salaries, police, judges, experts etc.. CFCSA time limits also serve to protect taxpayer interests, so why are social workers that earn a pittance salary being allowed to make million dollar removal decisions when there are clearly cheaper services in the form of a $1,000 25 to 50 hours of parenting courses that MCFD claims regularly address such concerns?

  3. Thank you, Ron, for the valuable information you are posting.

  4. Ron;when I started thinking about the topic of evaluation and assessment, I realised that it is a big and complex subject and I need to do quite a bit of preparation to make it useful to your readers. Meantime, as a prologue, I would like to get into your territory and quote from St.Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Number 13 I think. You tell me; you're the pastor.
    Anyway, there was this guy called Paul, who many years ago started a blog very much like yours. (Only he didn't write as well as you do of course.) There were some people from a place called Corinth logging onto his blog. I believe that is in Greece. He wrote them a letter which got quoted quite a bit. In it he examined the qualities of faith,hope and charity. I think the modern trend is to call it love. He was of the view that of these, love was the most important. He said words to the effect that without it we are as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. He rattled on about it quite a lot more. What this is all leading up to is that I would like to borrow his technique and rattle on about one of my favourite topics.
    I have mentioned before that good protection work needs staff who have inteligence, integrity, compassion and courage. The greatest of these is integrity. Without integrity so many things become easily corroded. Without integrity, intelligence itself can become a weapon instead of a tool. Without integrity, so many other things become converted from tools to weapons. With so much statutory power in the hands of the director and his staff, their integrity is the only protection for the public. Mediation becomes a weapon, as illustrated in the Bayne case. Without integrity, lawyers simply regard the CF&CSA as a cash cow. Without integrity counselling can also be destructive. There is no protection against the use of junk psychology with its mind-bending head games. Without integrity assessment can become a weapon. The standard risk assessment could not be more effective as a weapon, if it had been designed with that purpose in mind. Even if completed by a person of integrity, it is so flawed in concept, that it should not be used. I will explain that in days to come. One could see in the Bayne case how it was used as a very nasty weapon.
    Without integrity, even compassion can become misplaced. You think that is far-fetched? I give you an example. Following the death of Matthew Vaudreuil, the internal audit team investigated and submitted a strong report finding many failings in the staff who were on his case. The superintendant of child welfare watered this report down and completely destroyed its usefulness. She did this out of compassion for the staff in order to save them from distress.
    This created a furore, which finished up with her being discredited and eventually replaced.This action precipitated the Gove inquiry, which shook up the ministry. All because of misplaced compassion.
    I invite other bloggers to write about their experiences with lack of integrity.

  5. Chris Martell is not alone. Please browse the following websites documenting numerous deaths of children in the hands of CPS in North America:

    The latter contains familiar faces like Reena Virk and Sherry Charlie in B.C. Reena Virk is more well known on the mistrial of Kelly Ellard.

    Few Canadians know that she falsely reported abuse from her parents that resulted in removal. While in "care" of MCFD, she hanged around with the wrong crowd and was murdered. Ironically, child removal authority is even abused by children who use this as a weapon to fight their parents. Please browse

    Taxpayers narrowly escaped lawsuit from her parents for wrongful death because a judge ruled that the time limit for action is over.

    Special interests like CW will suggest that they are not the minority. The majority of their "clients" are better off after receiving "services". This requires most parents welcome the removal of their children and intrusive interventions in various oppressive forms with open arms. Is there any common sense in this statement? No.

    Are these children in the aforesaid websites and the victims of residential schools a minority? No. Most parents hate these hideous activities. Many remain silent for fear of retaliation. The high security in MCFD's offices confirms the unpopularity of service providers in the "child protection" industry.

    Killing CFCSA and outlaw child removal except in several limited situations is the only solution. This is not occasional mistakes made by some dumb bureaucrats. These are results of a structural corruption.

  6. Ray, commendable contemporary paraphrase of the letter of Paul and its setting. Good for you. Great segue to your subject.

  7. My Canadian experience with lack of integrity: 12,5 years long ongoing vigorous search for public servants capable to condemn his/her colleagues' illegal acts committed against my child and family remains futile. Keeping catastrophically corrupt Status Quo is paramount goal of public servants, hidden behind occasional cosmetic changes. Men and women of integrity who do not quit a few weeks after being hired are quickly supplanted by corruptible cowards. It is my very personal experience that not the Rule of Law, but Organized Crime rules in Unceded Indigenous Territory aka British Columbia.

  8. Total Power + Zero Accountability = MCFD

  9. Foster parents don't like to arrange alternate care for other kids in their foster home, don't like to drive a lot for appointments and sit around and wait at hospitals like biological parents will.
    Copied from anonymous 857 am

    Who are you kidding?
    As Bethanys Foster Mommy for 2 years I feel the need to reply to this!!

    I have willingly spent many many hours planning sitters for other kids in our home or arranging times when I could bring them with us for Bethanys many appointments. I have driven many miles from our home to BCCH and Sunnyhill sometimes as early as 6 am to make an 8 am appointment. I have spent lots of time sitting in waiting rooms, standing in lines and waiting our turn for Bethanys sake. I have had to help hold her down for needles and for medical procedures. I have had to advocate for her from the very beginning making sure every area of her health and well being were taken care of for her best interest. I have held her little hand, kissed her forehead, and whispered "we love you baby" in her ear until her general anesthetic put her to sleep. I then waited some more in a waiting room with butterflies in my stomach until the Dr would come out and reassure me all went well. I would then comfort an uncomfortable little girl, catch her vomit, and wipe her up while she recovered from her surgery. Then low and behold, I would sleep in a chair, not just once but a few times overnight for our little one so she wouldnt feel sad and lonely while she recovered.
    Hmmm wonder why I would do these things if I am not the parent?
    Maybe its because there are Foster Parents out there that DO care, That DO want to do this job because they enjoy it and find it rewarding to be able to help a child! Imagine that!
    Painting us all with the same brush is not fair.

    Tracy (foster mommy)

  10. Anon 3:11 - I never once said parents are "better off after receiving services." I did say something along the lines of (paraphrasing myself) "those who voluntarily seek services will benefit from them." I said the postings here which are being portrayed the majority - are the minority. Nothing more. Please do not extrapolate.

    I can explain this statement further if you wish it.

    I too, can find many many thousands of examples of CPS atrocities.

    ...not really connected to this post but here is an interesting (though not a good one!) article:

  11. To: Josef Fisher said... (June 30, 2010 4:41 PM)

    Totally agree with your first-hand experience. I have difficulty to understand those who find you implausible as they have no experience with MCFD and choose to believe the tactful deception put forth by service providers and ignore those who have experienced first hand.

  12. To: Tracy (foster mommy)
    Hello, I am one of many who completely believe you. My wife, like you, always did all she could for all children entrusted into our care. Tragic history of CPS, however, makes her, like you, just for being foster-parent, entirely natural suspect of all kind of wrongdoings. GOOD LUCK!!!

  13. Just wondering if this foster “mommy” is really “willing” taking Bethany to appointments if her mileage, parking, babysitting costs, meals, weren’t paid for, but then lets also add in the cost of the children being in the home. Are you still be willing to do the above if you weren't being paid? I thought not, mommy’s don’t get paid for mileage, parking, babysitting costs for other children, meals or for the stress of finding babysitters or driving in another city that is not familiar to you. They actually pay out. If “mommy” is what you are to these children then take the hit to your pocket book and put the money that you receive from being a foster “mommy” into the pockets of the parents that are fighting so hard to get their children back. If I’m not mistaken there is a spot on this blog that give you the Bank and account # so that you can help get those children back to where they have their mommy & daddy that are more than willing and actually desperately longing for these children to be in their arms and home again.
    If that money is too good and stays in your pocket book then don’t tell us you are "willing" to do the above afore mentioned you do it for they pay. And please don’t call yourself “mommy” I think that is an insult to the mommy (Zabeth).

  14. To Tracey (foster mom): don't you think the child would be better off with her own mother doing all that for her? I'm sure you're fostering out of the kindness of your heart but deep down you must know the love of the parents is what grounds the children to this earth. There are children who need foster care and there are children who are in care because of flaws in the system. The children who are caught up in this terrible mess are victims.

  15. Thank you, Anon 11:19 PM for believing me! I would never ever make any strong statement to or about dangerous power-holders not based on equally strong and mainly direct evidence. Genocide of native children and families goes on and on for centuries, in the last decades covertly, with tacit consent of uninvited newcomers and their descendants' overwhelming majority.

  16. TO ANON 7:01

    Its not up to me to decide whether Bethany should be comforted by her parents or not, its up to a judge at this point. I just hope and pray he gives a fair ruling. My job is to do my job, comfort and care for children placed in my care. I dont get to pick those children, they are proposed to me and I can say yes or no (to date, I have never said no) and then I do the best I can for the situation I chose to be in. I love fostering and find it very rewarding. But my job is to take care of the kids, nothing else.
    Tracy (foster mommy)

  17. There's something creepy and slightly sadistic about foster parents telling the world how they did thing to and with someone else's biological child which they have custody of (and which it would now appear they wrongfully have custody of - no fault of the foster parents themselves, of course) - things which would obviously cause the parents so much pain to read, things such as the intimate, heartbreaking moments, when their little babies are undergoing surgery, and how it was they, the foster "mommy", and, by implication, not the REAL Mommy, who gave them the kiss and comforting, intimate, whisper.

    It's really creepy, like someone is trying to not only take over the role of being a parent, but rubbing it in the real parent's face - knowing all the while they can't be with their helpless child, even in the most heartwrenching moments when a child needs you most (and what parent wants to hear about the time when their little baby had to undergo surgery - in which their child is so vulnerable, and in which there is always a chance they could die)?

    A foster person who is defending themself doesn't need to provide this kind of detail, in this manner, in order to get their point across.

    And please don't call yourselves foster "mommys" - that is disrespectful to real biological parents (not to mention needlessly saccharin), who - as we have overwhelming evidence - have had their children wrongfully taken. Again, this is not meant to be a criticism of foster parents, who, as we can see, play such a criticial role in child protection.

  18. Well actually it seems we do have to provide details so some people can understand the role we provide in some childrens lives. First of all, We do not have "custody" of someone elses children. When children are placed in Foster care, we are merely a guardian who takes care of the day to day activities of these children. We dont even have the right to sign consents even for simple things like hot lunch day at school. The Ministry has "custody" and we follow their rules. We do this whether we agree the children should be in care or not. We do it because we enjoy it, and find it rewarding, not because we are "creepy" My post was not meant to hurt anyone. It was in defence of someones anonymous comment that said that foster parents do not enjoy driving to Dr's appointments and sitting in waiting rooms as a natural parent would. Well I think even natural parents dont exactly love doing those things either but when you have a sick child or an injured child it is necessary whether you are that childs natural parent or a Foster "Mommy" or Foster "Daddy" No disrespect to natural parents intended!
    Oh and by the way, What makes a "real parent" ? I know a few "real parents" but they are not the childs "natural," or "biological" parent!

    Foster Mommy

  19. We hear you Tracy and appreciate your motivation for foster parenting.

  20. To Anon 6:11 and 7:01 AM
    While each of you say a thing or two that are useful, your attacks of Tracy are offensive even to me. Please make your points without personal references. I will not print another one. I am confident her salary or her willingness to chauffeur is not your most important objective.

  21. Tracy,

    If you are the foster child's guardian, why do you keep calling yourself the foster "mommy," even after you've been advised that it is disrespectful to the biological mom/parents? And for the record, I consider the biological mom/parents the real mom/parents. Not the "foster mommy."

    I hope it is true that you enjoy being a foster parent and take it seriously, but the fact that you usurp the role of the real parent, the biological mom, even by the insistence on her title, "mommy" suggests that you may not have enough respect for the biological mom.

    Remember, the judge has yet to decide if her children truly belong in the custody of MCFD, and hence, whether it is even right that you are guardian or "mommy" or whatever you want to call it.

    Imagine yourself in the same situation. Would you want your children to have to refer to someone else as "mommy"? Would you want a virtual stranger to refer to herself as your children's "mommy?"

    I know you probably think that this could never happen - that your children could never be taken by MCFD. But it's really quite possible, as we can see from what has happened in the Bayne case. All it takes is ONE doctor to say that a medical condition or an injury is "abuse." And any child, at any time, can have a medical condition or an injury.

    Please be more respectful to biological parents. You are not a parent to children who have been taken from their parents, you are - as you yourself state - a guardian. Not a "mommmy." Please don't sign off your post with the title "Foster Mommy."

    Thank you.

  22. Regardless of how wonderful some foster parents may or may not be, the fact remains that foster care is a dangerous place for too many children:

    "Deaths in Foster Care

    The most reliable data sources show that the ratio of deaths in foster care to deaths in parental care is 5.25 in Arizona, 9.5 in Saskatchewan, 6.9 in Manitoba, 11.9 in Britain and in Ontario 17 or ten, depending on whose side you take in a controversy. An overall round number of ten to one seems reasonable.

    Projected over Americas 550,000 foster children, there should be 1540 deaths per year. Our list of foster deaths from news sources shows less than a hundred annually. A reasonable guess is that only one foster death out of twenty makes it into the press."

  23. To Anon 5:39 PM ---- Tracy is not the present Foster mommy of one of the Bayne children but she once was. And I suspect that she is using the the label foster mommy as a generic screen name so don't make more of this than it is. I am confident Tracy is clear on who the biological true parents are.

  24. I can certainly further qualify the generalized nature of my previous comment that appears to have sparked a heated thread with the foster "mommy" Tracy's fierce defence of her job. Why comment now, months after the Bayne's children are no longer in her care?

    It is such back and forth commentary and acrimoney that increase the divide between foster parents and the natural parents. Perhaps that is a good thing, if the foster home supply is reduced, maybe social workers will concentrate more on intervening with families that really need the service instead of misappropriating resources for families for which other "services" are more appropriate.

    It is harmful to the child when a foster parent who wishes to fill her own personal needs to have an impressionable child to form intimate bonds that adult knows must eventually cease, which causes another separation event for the child that is that is needlessly more traumatic.

    Foster parents should be instructed to NOT get attached beyond anything more than a child-teacher relationship, or a grandmother-child arrangement. The children who are still visiting their parents, supervised, where the parents are still innocent until proven guilty have to have the parental hierarchy preserved throughout this time.

    Imagine being in the same room as a foster parent and listening to your child call that person "mommy." Now imagine the social worker giving the high-five to the foster parent for job well done in creating this psychological weapon against parents. This is the game that is played by MCFD that few people who have not personally experienced the removal of their child have difficulty comprehending.

    It is my personal experience that social workers and foster parents knowingly and deliberately subvert the temporary care arrangements in order to use the children against the parents. This is a generalization I make confidently based on my own personal experience, and listening to other parents, and reading other parent's posts. Tracy's comments underscore this.

    The fact that it is now known "Tracy" is not the current foster mom and is only one of four foster homes really does illustrate my point. A natural parent is such for life, not just a few months as in the case of a foster home, or in this most unfortunate case, a few years.

    I too, also view Tracy's comment and "mommy" signature with trepidation. The foster "mommy" designation in the signature is definitely a disrespectful jab directed towards natural parents that reveals an unfortunate mindset.

    Unless children who live in the foster home are there on a permanent basis, as result of a successful CCO or death of the natural parents, I would say a more neutral term such as "foster guardian" is more appropriate. I don't even like a "parent" reference to be used by foster home caretakers. "Foster lady", "foster person", "caregiver" -- there are plenty of more acceptable neutral terms to use that are more appropriately respectful of real active parents regardless of what they are accused of.

    Citations of repeated (and undated) trips to the hospital and citations of illness and long term damage the natural parents have inflicted on the children are notches on MCFD's belt that proves to them their CCO application is justified. How about trips to the church and other community events? Lets list and date those as well.

    Tracy's posting is part of the MCFD PR game as well whether she knows it or not, because her non-neutral comments can only be interpreted as supporting MCFD's action, and deriding the natural parents as she justifies her value over the parent's.

    Having what appears to be two different foster parents of the Baynes children comment defensively with a hint of anger or indignation clearly are not posts that have any sympathy for the Bayne's family situation, and are instead supportive of the Ministry's CCO action.

  25. Thank you Ron, I was in no way disrespecting Paul and Zabeth by referring to myself as Foster Mommy. At the time we fostered the Bayne children they called me Aunty as most of our placements do. There are some children that were very long term placements that copied my own children and called me Mommy too. Aunty is easy for them to say and its not offensive to most parents and alot less confusing for the kids and its what we prefer, especially for shorter term placements. My label "Foster Mommy" is a generic screen name as Ron said. I am absolutely clear on who the bio parents are for every child in our care. We work hard to get to know the bio or natural parents when possible, I have always made sure we recognize a childs natural family, we talk about family, pets, hobbies etc all the time. Ask Zabeth about when kent brought cookies to a visit that he made in my kitchen! There are many more examples but I wont bother, they'll just be twisted into something else anyway.
    And I am a Mommy, to our own 6 children and FOSTER Mommy to many Foster children and Aunty to some as well.

    FOSTER Mommy and Mommy and Aunty

  26. Anon: if you are the Anon who sent a comment at 10:09, it has not been posted. Remove the personal references to Tracy, the insinuations as to her motivation etc., and it will go up. A reread will signal to you what I find objectionable.

  27. I apologize for my post (anon 7:01 a.m.). I did not intend for it to sound offensive at all. I still don't see how it is offensive.Having had my own children removed from my care and never given back, I see two sides to the whole child services topic. A mother can't help but feel frustration when her children are being taken care of by someone else especially if the removal was uncalled for. The thought of another person trying to take my place is devastating and humiliating. Even though parents do understand that most people become foster parents for good reasons and do the best job they can, it is an emotionally draining concept for the parent who lost the children. I too find the term 'foster mommy' quite insulting and actually degrading to the true mother.

  28. Anon 4:14 PM ------ Apology accepted and of course, the feelings of frustration, devastation and humiliation and insult associated with having one's children in someone else's care who is taking the place of the mommy for this interim period of time are very understandable. My concern was simply to remove one foster mom who has identified herself by name, from being in the position of bearing all of the weight of birth parental upset.

  29. By the way in my 11:13 AM note above I said I removed it. I did. Last night I did publish it, unrevised by the sender. It contains some solid points of concern. It also illustrates what I as monitor consider to be unnecessary and that is insinuations directed at another contributor, specially one who has identified herself by name.

  30. Anon at July 2, 2010 10:09 AM

    I completely agree with you. I too think it is disrespectful, unnecessary, and just plain harmful to children, and the real, biological parents, to call foster workers "parents" or "mommy." This, to me, is just common sense, and shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out from a practical or moral point of view.

    When I listen to the tone of the writers, I hear pain and suffering - unimaginable pain and suffering - coming from the parents. I am certain that there are many more parents such as the Baynes who have been dealt the most cruel, unjust hand by this Ministry and those who work for it.

    Why anyone would continue to insist on calling themselves a "foster mommy" when it is so unnecessary, and after they have been asked not to do it, and told it is hurtful and disrespectful, is beyond me.

    Thank you to all the real, biological parents who are telling their stories here. Especially when you consider that they must just want to curl up in a fetal position forever, having lost, or slowly losing, what is most precious to them. Thank you for telling the truth. It is desperately needed.

  31. How can it be moral to keep children - to get paid for keeping children - that have been wrongfully taken from their parents?

    If a child has been wrongfully taken from their parents, that is tantamount to kidnapping. Participating in this is just wrong. No matter how one tries to sweeten it up, and use sentimental terms or terminology such as "foster mommy."

    Keeping children, who have been wrongfully taken from their parents, is just wrong. And to know that even some of the children may be wrongfully taken, and not to care or question, is mind boggling.


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