I wish you could hear Zabeth Bayne play the grand piano in concert. She is a very fine pianist, a classical concert pianist. She has keen technical skill, can interpret a composition with impeccable phrasing and dynamics and touch. And she can still do this without the consistent playing and rehearsal that would have characterized her life before the trauma struck. She owned a grand piano once. It had to be sold to pay for legal fees - lawyers. She hadn't needed a lawyer before October 22, 2007. That's when her three children were apprehended and Paul and Zabeth found themselves briefly in holding cells while the RCMP investigated their culpability in shaking their infant daughter based upon a medical diagnosis from Children's Hospital. They also had to let their new home go. There's no question that their cost has been high financially. That does not approach the severity of the cost to them emotionally. When she plays now, it's different for her I think. Someone who loves music plays because one must. The music is life and it is expression. It is nourishment. It is freedom. Perhaps she feels some of that superlative personal benefit still when she has played for concerts, one in January and one in June. However, I am guessing that it is not the same as it once was. She is playing because people have come to hear good music and have also come with the intention of making a contribution to the Baynes' Trust Fund. Somehow they must try to defray their legal debts and costs as they work nights as custodians. They are doing what they must do to make it work.
Perhaps it will all turn around for them in August when on the 9
th - 13
th the case is brought to conclusion and to a Judge's ruling.
Perhaps when her children are back home and the shear pleasure of that settles in, she might be able to take on some students once again, and maybe one of her boys will be interested in learning from her. She may even simply sit for thirty minutes to play so that her spirit can soar. It's been such a long and worrisome wait.
You want to know how deeply loved and respected they are by some people. At a wedding over the weekend when the attention would be predictably upon the bride and the groom, that couple chose to share the Bayne story with their wedding guests, even had Zabeth play the piano and urged their friends to make donations to the Trust Fund. It is astounding isn't it. And that is why the Risk assessment of the Baynes, authored by one of the social workers was so ludicrous by its misrepresentation of their persons. He didn't know them. He actually admitted that. Then why is such a person daring to write a risk assessment the potential for which might persuade a less discerning judge. Not this one though. Zabeth will make music again with three inspirations close beside her.
Few SW writing risk assessment know their "clients" (more like victims in most cases). This is an impersonal system in which those who get caught in it have little control. Parents are forced to interact with various breeds of service providers after intervention begins. That's how "evidence" is collected. When 10 people who appear impartial point their fingers against parents, their "evidence" become admissible and often accepted as gospel truth in the family court. In their infinite wisdom, judges do not appear to have a concern that people seldom bite the hands that feed them.
ReplyDeleteBureaucrats create jobs for themselves, work overtime to protect their job so that they can continue to work overtime. I am unsure how effective it could be when the livelihood of a problem solver depends on the very existence of the problem.
Hear what Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University spoke about family courts at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7mvDV-1MY
He gave a good overview of what the Baynes and many other MCFD "clients" are in.
Ron, your post paints a beautiful picture of the efforts they are making.
ReplyDeleteAnon - MCFD does use "family court." Family Court is reserved for such things as Family Relations Act proceedings.
10 service providers are required to produce an impartial overview of a parent(s), and yet in your mind the common denominator (parent) is to be believed over the 10 separate providers?
In the Bayne's case, It appears the issue re: the judge having a ruling is that the service providers have such vastly differing reports. So difficult for Judge Crabtree. Is that accurate, Ron?
Before I feel that I can answer you Question CW, I need you to tell me who qualifies as service providers. Are you talking about 10 different individuals in various fields, each of whom renders an assessment, official or not and from that an impartial overview i.e. risk assessment is developed?
ReplyDeleteRon; discussion has ranged far and wide over the last few days and I would like to focus a bit more on the main purpose of this blog.In a nutshell:on the basis of one controversial medical opinion, the director has spent hundreds of thousands of public dollars in manipulating a court case which will last almost three years.As I have said before, on the best information available, the ministry had no choice to do what they did at the beginning. However, a grave error in judgement was made when powerful new evidence appeared which called into question the validity of the first medical opinion. Far from re-appraising the situation, the director pressed ahead with adversarial determination and pursued a continuing care order on all three children.
ReplyDeleteHe then made the appalling decision to destabilise the care of the two boys by taking them from safe relative care and repeatedly moving them. This was a gross over-reaction to the parents desperate appeal to the media. Petulant to say the least. Cruel and controlling would be justifiable. As Ron states above, the Baynes were rendered bankrupt and lost their home. They have suffered extreme emotional distress for two-and-a-half years. The director plows on regardless.
One might well wonder how things could get into such a sorry mess, with all the theoretical safeguard provided by society. The director is by no means solely responsible for this miscarriage of justice.He was aided and abetted by many more people. Some by commission and some by omission.All these people took a part. There were lawyers, judges, internal review personnel, the deputy minister, the minister, various members of the legislative assembly, the ombudsperson, the representative for children and youth. Yes, we cannot forget all the people who worked under the director. sub-directors, supervisors, social workers and resource workers.
Ron, what I propose to do over the next few days is to look at each of these bodies and examine why they all failed in their duty of care towards the Bayne children. They all failed except one and I will save that one for the last.
To: CW (June 22, 2010 8:25 AM)
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first time you alleged that MCFD applications are NOT litigated in family courts. I would like to direct you to read the following from the Canadian Bar Association:
http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/110.aspx
You are skilled in double talk and in casting doubt. Explain to me what the materials under the heading “What does Family Court handle?” mean. Does it unambiguously say Family Court deals with child protection matters, which are monopolized by your ministry? If you still want to argue against this, go to a provincial court registry and tell the clerks that you want to file documents relating to MCFD applications. See where they will direct you to. The family court counter.
Of course, the provincial courts also have jurisdiction of most matters in FRA except sections 31 and 38 (1) (c) (iv), Parts 5 and 6 and section 125. But this is irrelevant to our discussion.
At times, I also have difficulty to understand what you are trying to say under the alias CW.
“10 service providers are required to produce an impartial overview of a parent(s), and yet in your mind the common denominator (parent) is to be believed over the 10 separate providers?”
I respectfully ask your damage control team to send someone more knowledgeable to monitor this blog. Perhaps someone with better communication and English skills.
The parents do have the choice to be silent and the onus would be on the Ministry to prove their guilt. The government does seem to be taking a rather long time to make this determination and the parents are not the one's delaying the process.
ReplyDeleteWhen one mentions the opinion of 10 service providers, the next question I ask is about timing of when the Ministry acquired the opinions of these providers, and why, after the first or second or third provider has supplied the same answer, why the other 7 were required to also supply identical answers?
Why do they ALL ten uniformly support the Ministry position? Is it because these provider's livlihood depends on giving the Ministry the answers that support the social worker's position?
If you have one dissenting opinion, the RCMP for example, this throws into doubt either the quality of service provided by the RCMP and their motive (which is apparently not being questioned by either side), and why 10 service providers hired by MCFD that are regularly used by MCFD, why none of them support the information provided by the parents and do not support the position of the RCMP.
Saying the RCMP is wrong is a clear indictment of that agency and their process. This introduces a much larger question towards the Ministry as to the validity of THEIR processes.
If MCFD was so convinced of the opinions of the 10 providers, why would they return the two boys without first providing "services" or first making a psychologist assessment of the children and parents to ensure they were making the right decision to return?
When the parents have the wherewithall to provide 10 matching dissenting expert opinions after viewing the same information the Ministry providers see, the question of motive then comes into play.
Determining motive is the job of the judge alone.
The Ministry wants to avoid a multi-million dollar lawsuit that would open up the doors to other parents who are similarly harassed by the government. Ministry operations and public support would be significantly damaged if even one parent successfully filed and won a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
The parents want their children back. They are not in danger of criminal charges.
If someone like Willie Pickton can get a defence that costs taxpayers millions dollars, why can't the government also provide matching funds to permit the parents to defend themselves, and to hire their own "providers" they believe are impartial to also supply reports to the courts?
In two and half years the Minstry has not yet proved to anyone's satisfaction their original decision for removal is correct. There is merely a long-standing suspicion. The assumption is the parents are innocent until proven guilty of abuse, otherwise they would be paying the government to care for their children. (Oops, I guess we are all are paying the government to take care of the Baynes children.)
Based on my experience, the INTENT of the Ministry is to overwhelm the judge with third party supporting information with the INTENT that the judge has to come to an inevitable conclusion that all these service providers cannot be wrong. It it is the classic baffle them with bullshit offense.
Court with MCFD is all about strategy, not justice. The use of "ten providers" is simply support of this strategy. It has nothing to do with the best interests of the children during this process.
OK Anon 11:13 AM, stay with challenging CW's viewpoints and please drop future slams and insults, i.e. you said: "I respectfully ask your damage control team to send someone more knowledgeable to monitor this blog. Perhaps someone with better communication and English skills." - not necessary!
ReplyDeleteIt's minor, yes but I won't have this escalate into a 'give you one better' exchange.
I watched both concerts Zabeth played at, and was very impressed with her piano playing skills.
ReplyDeleteMy mother began teaching me piano lessons at age four. By age six I was playing God Save the Queen in school assembly.
Depriving the Baynes three children of music their mother can provide is truly a huge violation of the children's and the parent' rights.
This invasive government intervention must be stopped. Parents, protect your children as I do and teach them how to protect themselves from this new monster that that pretends to help families.
If I was a social worker working for the Ministry, I would hang my head in shame and look for another job so I would not viewed with fear and suspicion.
The first question a parent needs to ask a social worker within the Ministry is are they registered with the college of social workers and will they abide by their guidelines.
Anon 11:13 - "Damage control team?" I am just some dude reading the blog. Thanks for providing the link Anon to clarify how the Bar association refers to child protection court hearings. As I said..."some dude reading the blog." Never said I was anything more. All info I have posted on this site has been provided through simple google searches, which I have then provided the links for when asked to.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this link Child Protection hearings are heard in Provincial Court not Family Court: http://www.courtsofbc.ca/provincial-court.php - read under Family Matters
(argument in semantics though?)
No intention to cast doubt. Fully intent on asking questions most on here don't ask to balance the conversation. I will state AGAIN - unless someone can come forward with proper scientific evidence to prove the Baynes kids were harmed - unquestionable reports and with independent reports also supporting this - the kids should be home with at least a supervision order for the purpose of making sure the children are reaching their expected developmental milestones. The love of these parents is not in question/doubt.
Ron - I was referring the anon above my post re: "10 impartial." Just assumed they meant 10 service providers. You can define a service provider as say a doctor, outreach worker, counsellor/therapist, faith-based support, etc. Either provided by MCFD or by the family themselves, I suppose. Open to suggestions.
I couldn't agree more that if a family can provide 10 alternative view-points of their own, then yes motive must be questioned - but on both sides.
I agree re: supplying families with adequate lawyers (ie, using Pickton's legal costs as an example).
Yes, this is taking much too long, this hearing.
If I was a social worker working for the Ministry, I'd quit. If only just to protest this horrific treatment of the Bayne family. But I am sure the Bayne family is not the only family that the MCFD has treated so horribly.
ReplyDeleteI also object to the comments made by "CW". He or she seems to be making comments that defame the Baynes. For example, as was pointed out, he / she used the rhetorical device of posing as the "devil's advocate" in order to suggest that perhaps the Bayne's own children didn't want to see him on Father's Day. That is, to my mind, an extremely hurtful and erroneous comment, regardless of whether it is coming from "CW" or from CW's alter ego of the moment, that is, the "devil's advocate."
CW,
ReplyDeleteYou say you are "just some dude" reading this blog, which makes you sound like a casual unsophisticated, easy going observer with no stake in the outcome of this trial. But the comments you have made are remarkably similar in tone and content to the type of comments that are made by those who support the child protection industry. And you will find these people posting and commenting everywhere there is an opportunity for them to bolster the image of the child protection industry, all over the world. They often make comments that are very slanderous of parents in general, and then they will - at the same time - purport to be on the side of individual parents, or just interested in what's best for children. They often make contradictory statements, and just throw things out there hoping something will stick. That something is usually something that places child protection authorities in a good light, and parents in a bad light.
Even if we only considered your comment where you play, as you put it, "the devil's advocate," and suggest that maybe the Bayne's own children don't want to see their own father on Father's Day, and that is perhaps why a visitation hasn't been arranged, that suggests you are something other than "just some dude."
I find it somewhat hard to believe that you are totally supporting the Baynes when you can make a comment like that. We don't really need any more advocating for the devil; what we need is advocating for the Baynes, and parents who have been victimized by them. If you want to present the MCFD's side, why don't you write to them and post their reply here on this blog.
And If you are the MCFD, or a social worker, or someone with an interest in placing the child protection industry in a good light, then please don't mislead us and call yourself "just some dude."
To: Anonymous (June 22, 2010 5:03 PM)
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you see the real picture. Let me share some biblical wisdom with you:
"If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:26). In the "child protection" industry, whoever betrays the principle of accrual of money and power, others betray him.
"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)
"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12)
What we are dealing with here is the master of all deception, expert in mixing truth with lies and casting doubt. You see how effective their deception is. After so much has been discussed, there are still people who do not believe that state-sponsored child removal is money and power driven.
The only solution is:
"Neither give place to the devil." (Ephesians 4:27)
Fair enough comments 5:03, but I think you've missed the point of my asking such questions - by playing Devil's Advocate it only serves to support the Baynes. It strengthens their argument when the Devil's Advocate can be refuted.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I have stated many times CP requires loads of improvement. But I will also state the majority that is portrayed here that MCFD and SW the world-over are unintelligent, self-centred, vindictive is the minority and the exception to the rule.
Supporting the Bayne's and also portraying the majority of SW as honest, hard working, caring people does not cancel each other out and make the points invalid.
Will re-iterate - any point I've made has been supported upon request by providing links found through simple google searches, thus I sign off today as...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOK, Ron, I know you do your best. The timely today's article cannot be about me too, right? :-) Please left out the middle part of what I wrote and sent you one hour or so ago. It is for CW. I learned so much here, GOOD LUCK!!!
ReplyDeleteThat's right Josef, the article today Wednesday 23rd was not about you. It was written generally for us all. I will look again at your previous submission as you request, and may have to pull it (reject it) because the Blogger program doesn't allow me to edit someone's comment. I think that is what you asked me to do here, correct?
ReplyDeleteExactly, Ron :-)! Self censored version
ReplyDeleteTo CW: You fooled nobody here. Your last question, and the next, if any, will stay unanswered. Have an ice day.
Good luck to you JF. I was only hoping to know that your life has turned around after all the pain and hurt. Apologies for not making that clear. All the best.
ReplyDelete"Just some Dude" or CW, or whoever you are, you state, at 10:54 PM:
ReplyDelete'Fair enough comments 5:03, but I think you've missed the point of my asking such questions - by playing Devil's Advocate it only serves to support the Baynes. It strengthens their argument when the Devil's Advocate can be refuted."
The Baynes don't need to be supported by someone who is using the rhetorical device of playing devil's advocate in order to suggest that the children don't want to see their father on Father's Day.
If I had not called you on that comment (and Ron also made a comment in reply to that comment I believe), it would have just been left out there for people to consider. Slander, or defamation, works that way.
I have been watching and reading comments by people such as you for some time now. I think I've become pretty good at recognizing those who support the child protection industry. You all sort of have the same style, which probably appears confusing to those not aware of your real objective.
Suffice it to say, anyone who even suggests that Mr. Paul Bayne's children don't see him on Father's Day because they don't actually WANT to see him, is not supporting the Baynes or parents. Parents and victims of the child protection industry do not need, and absolutely do not want, these kind of comments. So I suggest that you never make them, if you truly are what you say you are. Never, ever make a comment like that again, if you truly are what you say you are (i.e., someone who supports parents who have been victimized by child protection authorities).
Anon 1:28 - I am sorry you feel that way. I do support the child protection industry. I also support the industry needs adaptation, correction, development etc.
ReplyDeleteThe issues simply aren't as black and white as you wish them to be.
CW,
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty "black and white" that you don't torment a good father (e.g., Paul Bayne) by implying that his children, who are in a foster house, might not want to see him on Father's Day.
That was a cruel thing to do. Please just own up to it.