Thursday, June 10, 2010

OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION / Part 216 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I have learned that the MCFD is discontented, maybe even distressed with the publicity that is being received by the Bayne Campaign for Justice whether it has been through televised reports, online or hard copy news reports, or information at assorted websites and blogs and the unusual number of emails and correspondence and phone calls from Bayne supporters asking for the return of the children. The copy is always unflattering and critical of course. The phone calls and emails denunciative and demanding. I fully appreciate the frustration felt by social workers and managers of MCFD who principally seek to administer their responsibilities effectively. They want to go home at nights feeling that they have done the right things at the right times. I understand that. And MCFD employees feel that with respect to the Bayne support network no one appears to respect these sincere efforts.

Wouldn't tough-minded public ministry be convenient if everything that one did could be affected under a cloak of confidentiality or silence? That was practiced for years. Checks and balances were deemed necessary, an example of which is the position of Representative of Children and Youth designed to ensure that agencies serving children and youth are providing programs and care with which all of us are satisfied.

I was amused to hear Point #12 among the thirty point Ministry affidavit authored by social workers assigned to this case. I will tell you more about the MCFD affidavit next week. It's not appropriate for me to divulge more now before the Judge makes his ruling next Monday on the Baynes' application for unsupervised access to their children.

Point #12 was a “poor us” statement that had no bearing whatsoever on Baynes' unsupervised access application. It said, “The Baynes have a large following of supporters, often having many of those supporters present during Court hearings and otherwise engaging the Ministry through letters, phone calls, emails, and internet postings which convey many specific details of the Baynes' case and question the Ministry's motives."

What was the point of that? It entertained me because the authors appeared not to grasp that this MCFD Ministry is not beyond questioning. Any time that an agency's actions impinge upon the rights and freedoms of people, other citizens will question and expect reasonable answers. When the optics appear unjust, the questions intensify. And yes indeed people know about this case and feel strongly about it. After all, it was aired nationally as well as provincially by CBC and Global TV news. I have certainly capitalized on the vast network of contacts across the provinces that were afforded to me by the executive position from which I retired. A current total of fifty thousand page hits have been registered since the blog began in October 2009. Each day among the one thousand daily hits are social workers, directors and ministerial staff with the MCFD around the province, present and past caregivers, people with RCMP, people in medical facilities and universities, people from news media, from provincial government offices, from interested agencies in the U.S., and from many, many people in Canada who have been burned by child protection agencies.

This blog as I have said before, is decidedly 'pro return the children,' expressed within a framework of fair play. It may not always seem fair but that is the affect of stating an opinion on a blog. However, because I have invited comments, permitting both dissenting comments and passionate anti-MCFD comments, some significant exchanges occur. For the most part people are respecting civility while responding to one another. Yes people are being informed, challenged, caused to weigh arguments, and perhaps somewhere in the future, making the improvements that will reduce the number of removals and modify public perception. Yes there is publicity around this case.

24 comments:

  1. I am appalled when MCFD supports its position by alleging that supporters present during Court hearings and otherwise engaging the Ministry through letters, phone calls, emails, and internet postings which convey many specific details of the Baynes' case and question the Ministry's motives.

    Child protection hearings are open to the public. Any person may attend. MCFD is a public body exercising the absolute authority of removing children from their parents and expending huge amount of tax dollars. This is a public safety issue. Every citizen has the right to "engage" them in any way within the perimeter of law. It is safe to contend that the ardent talk of transparency and accountability is merely a lip service in this ministry, perhaps this government as well.

    It is poignant when a perpetrator pretends to be a victim.

    "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)

    ReplyDelete
  2. quote" it is poignant when a perpetrator pretends to be a victim"

    well said - I guess both sides feel that way ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron;you had wondered about the ethics of covering a protection case in a blog. Opinions can vary. In years gone by, family court cases were strictly closed and this sort of blog would not have been possible. In time the principle that justice must be seen to be done was extended to family courts and they became open to the public.
    One way to look at it is that by including the media, one is only extending the size of the courtroom, such as when one has televised trials.Blogs allow for a much wider range of opinons and viewpoints. Judges have the power to ban publication. In this case the judge refused the director's request for a publication ban, but stipulated that the children would not be named. In view of the fact that there were frequent demonstrations with placards bearing the family name, which could be filmed by all, this may be a moot point. Until blogs are declared to be part of the media, you appear to be under no ban.
    One of the director's claims is that the childrens' privacy is being violated. A valid point and bearing examination. Yes, children have a right to privacy and this is stated in the CF&CSA. However, children also have many other rights defined in the act.Rights to live with the parents, wherever possible. rights to continuity of care, to kinship contact, priority placement with relatives, to timely resolution of court cases and so on. With so many rights it is inevitable that these rights will occasionally come into conflict with each other. Then what becomes important is to balance the different rights of a child. This may cause a dilemma, needing good judgement to resolve. What happens is that the ministry employees always treat the right to privacy as if it were a paramount right, which it is not.The paramount right stated in the act is the best interests of the child.
    In order to determine the best interests of a child a judgement has to be reached on the individual circumstances of the case. An opinion has to be formed. Naturally the director thinks his opinion is the only one that counts. Others may differ. When the judge said to the Baynes give me an affidavit of facts supporting why unsupervised visits are in the best interests of the children, he is asking them to help him to form an opinion. There is the nub. In the final analysis only the judge's opinon counts.
    If we look at the above rights, we can see that just about every one of those rights has been shattered by the director,but the only one he mentions is the right to privacy. Oh yes, let us ignore every right of the children except their right to privacy. I am sure that the children are deeply grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's in the best interests of the Bayne children to be returned to their parents, asap.

    If the MCFD cares about children as much as they claim to, those children would have been returned long ago. Even their own lawyer said the two boys should be returned, did he not? They ignore their own lawyer when he wants to reunite at least part of the family. What does that tell you about their arrogance and unwillingness to admit they were wrong?

    As far as their "poor me" attitude goes with respect to all the attention that this case has garnered, there is no agency that has so much power to do so much damage and who is so unaccoutable. They get a bit of media attention and they complain? Excuse me, but aren't they, all of them, working for, paid for - by us?

    A family has been destroyed here, and who knows how many more have been destroyed in a similar fashion. The truth needs to get out. What are they so afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The point of public review is to correct deficiencies in taxpaid services, such as substandard service, waste, incompetance, malicious action -- you name it.

    Other parents with children in care can read the blog and question their social workers based on the information they read.

    The output of this case can be used by other parents to ensure they receive the same consideration in their case, if they were to see that the Baynes win unsupervised access or more access time, telephone access, webcam access, school access, timely information on their, or what have you.

    The problem MCFD faces is that each public case questions the entire system, as the simply represent ONE PARENT with its thousands of charges they are supposed to be treating equally. They can give some kids 3 hours per week access, and others in identical situations 6 or 12 hours weekly, some children get phone access while others get none.

    If this one Judge says there is no reason not to increase the paltry 6-hours of weekly visitation to 12-hours, every parent in the Province in a similar situation can similarly demand the same time using this judgment as a precident.

    Behind closed doors, I'm sure the judge would get into trouble for doing that.

    The problem is, a decision of this nature would double MCFD's out of pocket costs of operation and doubles the need for supervision. (Yay, more employment in B.C.)

    The one and only defence MCFD continues to flog is their now-questionable doctor's opinion the Baynes are guilty of on incidence SBS. To MCFD, an accidental injury is an unthinkable alternative for them to consider.

    MCFD absolutely needs external experts to declare abuse to support their "findings" in all such circumstancial evidence because it is embarrassing to go into court with only hearsay obtained after the fact.

    The RCMP (and the judge) are not doctors or are biomechanical injury experts (neither is Dr. Colbourne, apparently) and they decide after reviewing all the information MCFD helpfully provided, that there simply was no case for filing criminal assault charges.

    The judge also made it clear he was the one who would be determining guilt and motive, not this arrogant doctor who believes she is entitled to impose her opinion on the legal system and that her medical expertise has more weight than other evidence.

    The Baynes have considerably more ammunition that justifies their request for not only unsupervised access, but more access:

    1.RCMP refused to file charges as they disagreed with the Doctor's SBS diagnosis by not filing charges, based on proper investigation,
    2. In the Baynes visitations, all supervised notes show no danger
    3. The Baynes offerred FREE supervised persons agreeable to the director, MCFD can do background checks
    4. the boys were returned to the Baynes on agreement, so this means no concern by MCFD for their physical health in their parents care. Publicity is NOT an actionable protection concern as MCFD would have us believe.
    5. Finn recommended in writing the boys be returned because he is in agreement with the RCMP: "LACK OF EVIDENCE"
    6. Total time in care has greatly exceeded CFCSA guidelines, citing loopholes simply embarasses MCFD as grasping for little known tactics to justify their bumbling process


    The reality is that the more innocent a parent is, the worse they will be treated by MCFD because then MCFD has to constantly be in a process of generating evidence and proof that they are right in removing. MCFD also goes to extensive lengths to convince parents to confess or admit guilt.

    MCFD way of operation is on trial, not the Baynes, as they have already been exhonerated by the police.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And with respect to the claim of the violation of a child's privacy (e.g., publishing their names), child protection agencies regularly do this even when a child has been murdered in foster care.

    Now ask yourself this: why would a dead child need or want privacy? How is a dead child protected by keeping his or her name a secret?

    The real reason for the privacy demands is to keep secrets, and to ensure that those who should be accountable are not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is interesting to hear that the RCMP is reading this site. RCMP should have little interest on monitoring this blog unless someone called them and asked them to look for criminal activities.

    Be mindful that the record of IP addresses of all browsers are available to authorities by way of a subpoena.

    The word "police" appears 30 times in the entire CFCSA, obliging the police to assist SW as they demand. The police has no option or discretion at all but to act as commanded.

    I personally know several police officers who despise and resent arbitrary decisions of removing children from their parents and the subsequent trauma created to children. However, they must obey the commands of SW. They risk losing their job if they don't. Armed with the absolute authority to remove children, SW indeed have more power than those armed with guns and taser.

    Being the running dogs of SW grants no immunity of being harmed, please browse what a RCMP officer said about her experience with SW:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWHavk3MBn8&

    For the information of SW reading this blog, this video passed the clearance of the RCMP Public Relations Department. Be aware of this before you complain to them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To CPS destroys Families:

    Defining the best interests of children is monopolized by MCFD. It does not matter what you or other parents think what best interests should be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MCFD is afraid that one day the general public will be aware of the games they play and how they conduct business. The Bayne's case is not unique at all. They are one of thousands of families destroyed by child protection agencies everywhere from here to the U.S. to Ireland, to Australia, to England to Norway. It's time people started looking at the big picture because thousands of children are crying themselves to sleep at night missing their parents. Thousands of children are only allowed to see their parents supervised and all too often it is uncalled for. People are suffering because of the power that we have given MCFD.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that the Bayne case is not unique.

    And the MCFD must just be scared to death that the truth will get out because of blogs like this. Because if the public really knew what was going on, they would be incensed. Heads would roll.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think this is the saddest thing, these children, the Bayne's children, that is (and how many others) must be suffering so much. And why? So government workers and experts and service providers can have a job? I'd rather be digging ditches or sweeping a floor for $5 / hour than doing what they do to children.

    All along, all these people have been painting themselves as saints and saviors. How can they live with themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Allow me to add and try to endure another personal experience, my fellow citizens. Seeking justice for very seriously, for the rest of his life harmed child of parents falsely accused by the Ministry for Children and Families is deadly dangerous!!! Ten years less six days ago a team of experts fabricated 16 pages long Threat Assessment: "It is clear that FISHER is not going to go away. It is possible that stress and pressure can cause a person to become mentally ill. This may be the case with FISHER as he has no known previous mental health issues. There is a HIGH RISK that FISHER will carry out an act of violence against any person who, at that point in time, he feels is significantly interfering with his life. There is also a HIGH RISK that, if he attempts suicide, he will try to take someone with him. FISHER obviously feels justified in his course of action and he has the ability to carry out his threats. The act of writing and sending faxes is an outlet for FISHER for the moment. As long as he sees alternatives to violence, he will utilize them. The risk would increase dramatically if the contact stops." The expected carnage is universally accepted as the only, and therefore an ideal conclusion. Abusers of Power count on all probable scenarios, means and opportunities, such as the grisly murder of two or three teachers and all their preschool children. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is interesting to hear that the RCMP is browsing this site. The RCMP have little interest in monitoring this blog unless someone called them and asked them to look for criminal activities.

    The word "police" appears 30 times in the CFCSA, obliging the police to assist SW as they demand. The police has no discretion at all but to act as commanded.

    I personally know several police officers who despise and resent arbitrary decisions of removing children from their parents and the subsequent trauma created to children. However, they must obey the commands of SW. They risk losing their job if they don't. Armed with the absolute authority to remove children, SW indeed have more power than those armed with guns and taser.

    Being the running dogs of SW grants no immunity of being harmed. To the police officers reading this comment, watch how your colleague was treated by SW at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWHavk3MBn8&

    A single mother RCMP officer shared her experience of receiving "service" from SW.

    If you are interested of her testimony, please watch Part 2 and 3 at

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pjobcayGuk&

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igH_KvKr8zo&

    ReplyDelete
  14. George Orwell: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

    ReplyDelete
  15. No one removes children to "keep their jobs." I mean honestly, people!

    Ron, some of the conspiracies put forth on this page are beyond the ridiculous. Yes, there are LOADS of factual statements about families having torrid times with CPS across the continent and the world - it would appear most pertinently, the Baynes.

    The issue with a lot of these comments on this web page is not that they are being made - it's the umbrella-nature of them.

    Ron, quite honestly, I'd expect you to put forth a much more balanced view considering your faith. Favour the Baynes and be proud of that. When speaking in a general fashion and not about the Baynes I am surprised your view-point and narrow-focus is just that...so narrow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The MCFD gets the RCMP to do its dirty work. It's not right. The RCMP shouldn't be doing this kind of work. They find the parents not guilty, and then MCFD takes the children away anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Please read and sign the online petition:

    "Reform B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development"

    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RfrmMCFD/

    Leah Flagg

    http://www.leahgainorflagg.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. MCFD makes the RCMP look bad. They (the RCMP) don't need this bad publicity. They need to be able to focus on solving real crimes, and they need a justice system that will back them up regarding real crimes. Parents whose children have accidents does not constitute real crimes.

    Why on earth would the RCMP be reading this blog? What are they looking for? Do some of their members also think MCFD has way too much power?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon, I will certainly accept responsibility for remarks made in the post proper, which I believe are conspiracy free. As for the comments section, I must say that allowing latitude stretches my tolerance as well. I understand the reasons for extreme comments but do not endorse them, and while letting them be published, concur that some tend to be borderline fiction. I do prefer to deal with facts and evidence. Hearsay has marked some of the Bayne ordeal and I have been critical of that. I am just as suspicious of hearsay allegation against MCFD, but I am not about to turn my posts into rebuttals of everything that I read among the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It actually saddens me that the Bayne's case is one of the only cases receiving so much publicity. There are so many parents hurting over what the ministry has done to them and so many families that deserve to be recognized for what they have gone through. Parents are humiliated and drug through the dirt in court. Some trials have reminded me of what the early 1800's must have been like for women with lawyers asking about sex lives from several years before the children were even taken. MCFD does not always or even most of the time, search for the best interest of the children. In Ontario, the regulations have been re-worded to say that the best interest of the children will 'be considered' but not necessarily be the chosen route. It is a sad state of affairs that our foodbanks and shelters are full of people who were either taken by child services or had their children taken. It's an ever sadder state of affairs that the public closes their eyes to the side effects of letting social workers run wild with power. There are people who have devoted their lives to getting their children back and spent years fighting false allegations that cost them jobs, family, and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am in agreement Anon immediately above, that numerous other individual cases deserved to have their stories told. It dismays me too that most of these families endure or are disabled or ruptured without anyone knowing. Perhaps the public doesn't so much close its eyes as move through life without anyone telling them "Look here, see this! See how these helpless people are hurting?" I still believe that if more people will take up the cause to tell the stories, more people will actually become concerned to see needed changes made. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To Anonymous (June 11, 2010 11:05 AM):

    I am sure you want people to believe that the allegation of money drive motive in state-sponsored child removal is a conspiracy as this will deprive opposition all reasons other than the noble cause of "child protection" in your operation. May I ask what these conspirators are after? How could they benefit in collapsing your industry?

    Your comments bear remarkable resemblance during the abolitionist movement against slavery in England two hundred years ago. Pro slavery MP argued that young and strong negro slaves were removed from their families, not for financial reasons, but for their own good. If they were not shipped to America and sold as slaves in sugar plantations or cotton fields, they will die of disease or starvation in their homes.

    You made a board, unsubstantiated claim that no one removes children to "keep their jobs." Please advise how many SW live on the avail of child removal, or “child protection” as you may most likely wish to call. How about law firms who represent MCFD in court, foster parents whose main income are from warehousing removed children from your activities, shrinks who received referrals from MCFD to assess parents, ... etc.

    The Christian faith requires telling the truth, not a balanced view. Balanced views sometimes distort and compromise truth. Ron may focus on the narrow issue of bringing the Bayne’s children home. But he has inadvertently opened up much broader issues on corruption, abuse of authority, natural justice and public safety. State-sponsored child removal has reduced humanity to the level of brutes. Its true beneficiaries are trying everything to prevent other views be aired publicly and tarnish these views as radical, ridiculous and unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This battle makes David and Goliath look like a breeze.

    On one side, you have parents who have lost everything fighting to get back their children. House, piano, careers, children. All gone, thanks to the almighty MCFD.

    On the other hand, you have the almighty, enormously powerful MCFD, and all its lawyers (who will litigate forever, if need be), paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, expert witnesses flown in from everywhere, shrinks, social workers, foster parents, and the whole industry that claims to "protect" children. All this bearing down on two people, the parents, who are essentially fighting against a montrously powerful force.

    Yet, in spite of this extremely unfair battle, we still have people complaining about a measley comment or two on a blog somewhere in cyberspace. It really tells you something, that these people can't even accept the tiniest criticism without the constant need to deny and sling mud and whatever else they have been doing here on this blog and elsewhere.

    The Bayne children need to be returned home. That is the only just and humane thing to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  24. My apology on a typo in my previous submission sent on June 11, 2010 6:08 PM. The word board should be broad at the beginning of the third paragraph.

    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