On the Saturday, June 5, 2010 blog entry called
Munchausen Syndrome / Part 210 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ someone left a comment. You can read it in full but I can synopsize it with this comment.
The writer has become a recent reader of this blog and seeking to catch up on some of the previous posts has left a comment to describe the impressions which the numerous comments have produced. My blog itself without the colour of comments from readers would be uncomplicated and certainly clear in its intention. It would exclusively speak in favour of the restoration of the Bayne family. From the beginning of the blog I had the option of either permitting readers to comment or removing this possibility. I chose to welcome comments. I knew that comments from others might seem to compromise my purpose of advocating for the Baynes. I also knew that an equitable comment opportunity would increase the likelihood of two opposed persuasions listening to one another 's issues and arguments. The writer of the comment struggles with the contending medical opinions, and stories and objectives and outcomes. I wrote a response.
In answer to Anon June 6, 2010 10:44 AM
I would say that your observations as a relatively new reader of this blog with its list of posts and comments, accurately describe the tensions that exist between opinions and sympathies. I will say that the blog itself, my creation, is decidedly pro-Bayne family reunion because I personally believe that a wrong diagnosis was made and that the parents did not themselves harm their child volitionally or accidentally. I believe that the child's injuries were accidental or otherwise medically accountable. I write with respect for social workers, case workers, the ideal mission of the Ministry of Children and medical professionals but I write critically of incompetence. I am critical of what I perceive to be errors in judgement by those who are commissioned with so much power they are virtually immune to second guessing and discipline. The Baynes have an army of people who are their defenders, supporters and advocates whose opinions the Ministry has chosen to ignore, and the Baynes themselves do not contribute to the regular comments on this blog that either support them or are critical of the Ministry behaviour. I have permitted a ranging expression of comments all within the filter prescribed on the comment page. I permit defenders of Ministry actions and people committed primarily to the welfare of the children to write comments. No comments are edited. Truly offensive comments (my judgement) are rejected. I will not publish obscene, malicious or slanderous comments. The Bayne plight has given voice to numerous individuals who have similarly been deprived of parental and family rights and needless to say are not quick to hold back their anger with systems and people and who at times will express what they honestly have come to believe to be a financially driven conspiracy. I myself do not buy this implausible notion but I will not rebuke those who have lived with such grief and loss sometimes without hope of remedy.
The writer has become a recent reader of this blog and seeking to catch up on some of the previous posts has left a comment to describe the impressions which the numerous comments have produced. My blog itself without the colour of comments from readers would be uncomplicated and certainly clear in its intention. It would exclusively speak in favour of the restoration of the Bayne family. From the beginning of the blog I had the option of either permitting readers to comment or removing this possibility. I chose to welcome comments. I knew that comments from others might seem to compromise my purpose of advocating for the Baynes. I also knew that an equitable comment opportunity would increase the likelihood of two opposed persuasions listening to one another 's issues and arguments. The writer of the comment struggles with the contending medical opinions, and stories and objectives and outcomes. I wrote a response. 
Wait a second here, the commenter that is the subject of today's blog has friends in the Health and Ministry of Children and Family and is stating he witnessed multiple cases of abuse and didn't report it? That is illegal!
ReplyDeleteIn no way shape or form is there any indication on either side of the fence there is any disagreement that deliberate harm to children by another's hand is acceptable.
The very simple issue that this blog represents is that three children have been in care for 2-1/2 years without resolution, even after the assigned 3-weeks of trial. The Ministry still has not yet finished having all its witnesses testify.
One "side" advocates removing the three children from the Baynes forever and adopting them out or keeping them in foster care until age 19.
I am very suprised anyone claiming to represent or are otherwise associated with the Ministry would dare take a position without being in close proximity to the facts and/or hearing court testimony. It appears some of those folks in posession of the facts are online and are commenting, perhaps inappropriately given a trial is in progress.
If a jury trial was in progress in the matter, the jurors would not be allowed to see any of the materials that appears on the blog.
Those with personal experiences and those who have talked to parents cannot be ignored, even if some may appear inelegant or controversial online. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
The concert Zabeth and Mark Ferris put on was excellent. Zabeth is an incredibly talented pianist.
ReplyDeleteThe half-time video of the various news stories and friends's testimoney's were certainly an eye opener, expecially for my children who were watching with me.
It is sad to see that a government organization charged with child protection is permitting so much psychological and physical damage to occur to children while in their care.
It is worse to imagine people seeing children being harmed will hesitate in reporting such incidents with the knowledge that the only "remedy" the Ministry has to offer is to remove children from their parents for several years.
MCFD, please return the Baynes children. Thankyou.
Allow me another inelegant comment, my fellow citizens, RE "what is going on here". Mr. Unruh courageously exposes here another case of public servants' usual "superiority", incompetence and malice. We all see the results. How many more characteristics are needed to explain outrageous ongoing psychological and emotional abuse of Bayne's children in State custody? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGive the children back. They have suffered, and must surely continue to suffer. They want to be with their parents, who love them more than anyone. This is just the cruelest thing a government can do.
ReplyDelete