Sunday, July 4, 2010

Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 239 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

PART 1 of 2
The Ministry is seeking a Continuing Care Order (CCO) from the Judge. Conclusion of the court hearing is scheduled for August 9-13, 2010.

The Child, Youth and Community Services Act contains CCO specifics about which we should be informed as we follow the Baynes' determined toil to survive as a family. What am I saying? This is horrible that two parents in our community, in this province should be spending every waking minute of every day, not taking care of their children but rather, trying to get their children back. And even that is saying too much. They can't do much. They have to wait and wait for a few days in August when lawyers will lock horns once again. They have to wait until one man, His Honour Thomas Crabtree, yet nonetheless a man, will render a ruling that will either make them a family or break them.

For children in at-risk situations within their own family homes or with care providers, the Act becomes an instrument of deliverance. The Baynes, however represent a host of families whose futures have been interrupted by insult and abuse from outside the home. Justifiable initial investigation is one thing but this prolonged and malicious invasion while not criminal, should be regarded as contrary to law. I cannot fault readers and commentors for concluding that the Act while dressed with approved legalese is callous enough but then interpreted and practiced by the Fraser Region of MCFD as in the case of the Baynes, has become the most unfeeling device of cruelty that exists in B.C. against which there is no law or penalty. Think that's overstated? Ask your children as they get ripped from your arms on the strength of an anonymous phone call?

The court is authorized to grant continuing custody of the Bayne children to the director if it is unlikely that improvement has been made or will be made to the circumstances that led to the removal of the children, or that the parents are unable to meet the needs of these children (CFCS Act 49.5.a+b). There has never been a question that Paul and Zabeth have the capacity to provide for the needs of these three children. Husband and wife while giving up day jobs in order to be available to visit the children in day hours have nonetheless found employment at night as custodians and they maintain as always a clean and well equipped personal domicile. They are intelligent. The are well read. They have principles and values commensurate with most of us in our society. They are compassionate and helpful to others. They have friends. They have people who admire them. They are respectable and respected. The show respect to others. They say thank you. A couple of their children needed frequent medical checkups due to prematurity at birth yet these parents always cared for their children and were in no way negligent. Those were the circumstances before the removal of the children, before the 2007 accident to one child. Paul and Zabeth have never ceased demonstrating tender and loving care and concern for the children they can only see for a few hours each week. This is an industrious and diligent and focused couple. Today the status of the case is unchanged. No new evidence exists upon which MCFD can prop up its case. One doctor's diagnosis is caught in an arena of medical professional dispute. The Baynes' circumstances at the time of removal were dictated by misplaced suspicion of wrongdoing. It is high time that skeptics accept that this happens. I am confident that Justice Crabtree has discovered this.

This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth.


  1. For the love of God, perhaps we should think about what we can do to prevent ministry-created atrocities like the Bayne's from happening again.

  2. Now we are getting somewhere Anon 1:47 AM
    It is when the collective of the disgusted join ranks and become a mighty voice, that this government will be required, compelled to listen. Right now, it is business as usual, with disjointed pockets of advocates for change. Someone must unite the populace by information and inspiration to make the collective story known that we all do not need to take this any more.

  3. I will ask you all to do this. When you have a few minutes, write an email note to a news journalist, whether newspaper or TV network and invite them graciously to read this GPS blog site to catch up on news about Paul and Zabeth Bayne and also the popular opinion about some Ministry of Children conduct and practice and to follow this for a while with a view to doing a story or two.

    Good morning, Ron! YOU DO excellently inform and inspire readers with your dedication and very hard work (I bet is 15 hours or so every day)! A lot of people over this continent regularly listen to COOP Radio ( am sure that managers will gladly help you spread the TRUTH, and in a short notice. Maybe serial. You may like this idea, or not. Anyway, GOOD LUCK in everything you do! JF

  5. thanks Josef, I will look into it.

  6. I am sorry Josef, I have just now seen the 'Not For Publication' title of your 7:17 am comment. In reading the content I thot it valuable. If you still want it unpublished I will pull it. Let me know.

  7. I did not like to look as giving you some advice Ron :-) , so do as you like pls.

  8. Ron said:

    "I will ask you all to do this. When you have a few minutes, write an email note to a news journalist, whether newspaper or TV network and invite them graciously to read this GPS blog site to catch up on news about Paul and Zabeth Bayne and also the popular opinion about some Ministry of Children conduct and practice and to follow this for a while with a view to doing a story or two."

    (And thanks for the excellent suggestion, Ron.)

  9. For those who would like to see changes to the child protection system / courts:

    Canada Court Watch

    Here is Canada Court Watch's position on Child Protection agencies:

    Please read this website -

    And please contact them and tell them about any concerns / issues you have with child protection agencies anywhere in Canada.

  10. Ron; as you bring up the topic of the act, I want to say a few words today. Tomorrow, I want to continue with my topic of assessment and evaluation. Today I just want to mention that the CF&CSA is a thoroughly bad act. It does not work nearly as well as the old one that it replaced. As soon as it was passed the courts became logjammed and have never recovered. Later on I would like to cover the act in a little more detail on your blog. There is a simple way to fix it. Scrap it and just bring back the old act.The old act worked;this one does not.

  11. There are alot of parents in Canada who are intelligent, well read and devoted to their children. There are a lot of parents who spend every minute in a state of anxiety wondering how they will get their kids back, what step they should take next, who to talk to, where to go for help. The Baynes case is beyond horrific but the public should realize that many parents are in the same position. But, unlike the Baynes, most parents don't have support. They might not even have a single person who believes their side of the story and that is the problem. The general public doesn't believe that this is happening to thousands of Canadians.
    Up late into the night reading laws, searching the net, seeking answers that don't exist; spending whole days going from one MLA office to the next trying to explain what happened; endless hours on the phone making complaint after complaint to the ombudsman and MCFD. All of these parents that have been wrongfully accussed and mistreated deserve recognition.

  12. You are absolutely correct Anon 5:47 PM.
    Some of the friendless about whom you speak have spoken to me and you are correct, their burden is so much heavier for them. You are also correct I believe, that the general population is almost entirely unaware that injustices occur. The Baynes are indeed fortunate in that they have a support network. Perhaps as we talk we can stir one another to come alongside others who have little support or encouragement.

  13. Excellent post today, Ron. Change comes from the people.

    To add to the thought - more value need be put into prevention, and recovery. So much can be prevented, if the avenues were available. So many people wish to recover and have no avenue with which to explore (I guess I am referring to addiction in regards to "recovery).

    Both are truly neglected, yet reaction is funded up the "wazzoo."

    Try getting a child in desperate need of increased autism funding. I dare you.

  14. It appears some significant changes have occurred recently at MCFD.

    The Vancouver Coastal region took over the North half of the Fraser Region. This includes Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and soon in September, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.

    Linda McNulty is the Executive Director of Pracice for the Vancouver Coastal Region for MCFD. She earns $92,486 according to the Vancouver Sun public salary database.

    Most CSM's (Community Service Manager) earn from $75,000 to $85,000, so it appears she is a bit higher up in seniority.

    Perhaps others could respond with the possible significance and reason for this move.

  15. "In the fall of 1996 in Nelson, shortly after the new ministry had been formed, two social workers (a supervisor and a manager) were suspended without pay/pending the results of an inquiry into their failure to prevent the death of a child{Vancouver Sun, 8 November 1996). This sent a clear message to all social workers that eliminating the risk of harm to the child would be the standard by which their practice would be judged. The result of this message was that children who could have been with their parents were placed in foster care. The vision of a supportive and community-based approach to child welfare practice was replaced
    by an investigation-oriented and punitive approach in which the realities of parents' lives were disregarded and the ministry itself became the "parent" for an increasing number of children."

  16. That should read - try getting a child with autism spectrum increased funding even when they are in desperate need of it.

    Apparently, kid getting hit by car or worse need be done first.

    "Recovery" can cover many many areas - not just addiction, simply train of thought on that post.

  17. CW,

    Today's entry by Ron was clearly in support of, and focused on, parents who have had their children wrongfully removed by an unjust Ministry. But somehow you spin that around to being concerned about "addiction," thereby, in effect, slandering parents. I'm not sure if you are aware, but this is a common response of child protection agencies that are under scrutiny - to continually deflect attention away from their failings and to point a finger at parents.

    When I read your posts, I can see that you do appear to support the child protection industry, either by casting doubt on the Bayne's story (e.g., by playing, as you put it, the "devil's advocate," in order to say defamatory things), or by subtly hinting that the Baynes in particular and parents in general are hiding something and / or guilty of something, or - as in this most recent post - by suggesting that parents are "addicts" and in need of "prevention" and "recovery."

    I notice you mix something non-controversial in with your post, something that is sure to garner support - in this case, the obvious fact that children with autism are in need of funding. But you have yet to really support what this entire blog keeps repeating - the fact that large numbers of good families are being torn apart by an out-of-control and unaccountable Ministry.

    It's rather hard to believe you really care about changing what is wrong with child protection when you use any opportunity to make statements such as you have above; that is, statements which once again reinforce the idea that parents need to be in "prevention" or "recovery" programs, and that they are a bunch of addicts.

    There are many, many parents such as the Baynes who DO NOT abuse drugs or alchohol, who are good, loving parents, who care deeply for their children, and who do everything for their children, yet still have the Ministry swoop down and rip their families apart. With respect, I ask that you please stop your defamatory statements. We get enough of this via tabloid and mainstream media.

  18. To: Ron (July 4, 2010 10:12 AM Part 238)

    "I am still believing that there are democratic solutions in our democratic society but we first have to wake up the sleepy in the legislature."

    MLA from all political orientations know this problem when or shortly after they entered politics. In addition to the complaints against MCFD they receive from their constituents, it is not difficult to understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet, they lack the political will to change law or to institute any monitoring programs to curb abuse of child removal authority. Something like the ICBC car bait program would give effective deterrence. If SW are proven guilty of abusing such authority, it will result in criminal charges and immediate dismissal with no severance pay and no pension. This is a very reasonable action to take for any responsible government. Yet, they have no gut to take on special interests.

    The problem you discovered since you became involved in the Bayne's case is not new. The fact that it exists for such a long time suggests that the corruption is much deeper that you could imagine. Since you reject the money-driven theory (a conspiracy as you described), I suggest that you dig deeper, get involved in politics and find a better explanation yourself. In my humble opinion, the evidence is obvious but you refuse or fail to see it through the empirical results such corruption has created. I don't want you to run around in circle without achieving anything after making such tremendous and admirable effort.

    Speaking of democratic solution, the only solution that I can see is to support those MLA who opt for killing CFCSA and remove those who don't. MLA will not act unless their votes are being affected in the next election. Any measure less would not change anything. Mark my words on this.

  19. I am OK with eliminating CFCSA, specially when someone like Ray Ferris assures us from experience that the earlier version worked more reliably and humanely.

  20. 1/2 Support network?
    There do exist downsides to of having a support network. MCFD has a variety of tactics to undermine such support networks in order to sabotage you while your children are in care, and can even extend to after your children are returned.

    MCFD can dig in their heels when they are under pressure, and can elicit support from superiors as in the case of the Baynes, where an outcome in aganst MCFD has the potential to threaten their ecosystem.

    The particular tact I chose to take was to downplay any sort of support network I had, representing myself to appear more vulnerable and willing to work with MCFD, took all possible services plus additional courses, as was the advice of my original lawyer.

    It is a difficult realization for parents that the time to prepare is before your children are removed. All the support letters you submit at a presentation hearing are ignored. This was the case with the Baynes, and in my case.

    The absolute top priority is to get the protection hearing date whether it be 5 or 10 days of trial as soon as possible. Until this happens, ignore all time-delaying mediations and race through pointless case conferences until this date is secured. If you can swing it, move the venue to Vancouver, where trial dates are easier to get.

    The information from numerous pro-parent web sites is at first unbelievable as they correctly predict what you will go through as a parent, and what your children will go through in foster care - it is unbelievable, but it is all true.

    Being in touch with other parents that have experienced MCFD's tactics is quite helpful, as you may find your own friends and family not comprehending MCFD involvment and not quite willing to listen, or disbelieve the horror stories of child protection.

    Tireless research and familiarizing myself with what I was facing allowed me to formulate strategies that served to minimize my children's time in care and successfully get them out. For me, under two years for a complete withdrawal is a long time, but apparently this is "quick."

    Parents who are clearly innocent get more attention from MCFD as they have to work harder to gather evidence after the fact. MCFD continually feels they need to justify the removal at every opportunity hoping you will defend yourself. They hate it what you smile and say "that's nice"

    Every word you and your children say (if they are old enough) will be taken out of context and used against you. So recording complete conversations, anticipating their evidence and upending it with your own transcripts attached to sworn affidavits works like a charm.

  21. 2/2 Support network?

    During this time, I asked endless questions, gathered information, made court applications, you name it. I counted my participation in 20 BC Supreme Court appearances and 12 Provincial CFCSA appearances over a two year period.

    Above all, if you show MCFD your frustration, anger, display any "victim" responses, they love that. If you show your support network, they will use them against you. If your children are calm and relaxed in your presence, but MCFD records "chaos" in multiple foster homes, they will blame your parenting style, not the fact the kids are traumitized due to the removal and extended absence from you.

    I got the kids iPods at Christmas and loaded them up with games photos, music they could lock from prying foster parent eyes, so they could isolate themselves from the foster parents and associate the device with home. It worked great to help them survive and slow the MCFD attempts to break family bonds and turning the kids against their parents.

    Each name of your supporter that you submit is looked up in the MCFD database. If there is a birthdate, this process is easier for snooping social workers. They can roughly tell how much you and your supporters make be seeing what MCFD child benefit payments are made to you and estimate how much of a financial fight you can put up.

    If there is no entry for your friends or extended family in the MCFD database, ie. the person is "clean" they do NOT use that person as a collateral, because then MCFD would be forced to write down good information - and they never will write down anything positive.

    If a person has history with MCFD they can be blackmailed to give up derogatory information against you. If instead they like the person and they have a record with MCFD, they can promise them something like a free babysitter or free daycare in lui of an outright financial bribe if they give up some dirt on you.

    The support people can also have their lives made miserable if MCFD feels the need to kick out the legs of your support people. A mediation session of which there can be no record of, can be used to "inform" your friends and families of your sins and MCFD can put forward their suspicions and "concerns" without fear of liable or that annoying privacy of personal information, because, after all, you invited those people to mediation.

    If there is an ounce of discord in your extended family and support network, MCFD will identify that and use that against you. They can phone your employers, children's sports coaches in the pretext of arranging activities, phone your friends, or phone your employer at your job, talk to your your children's school even if it is to say nothing. Just the fact MCFD is enquiring about you can do damage.

    Appearing small and tiny can be one strategy if you can stomach that and are willing to swallow your pride. When when trial comes, you can then calmly stand up and use the information gathered over the long wait for that date.

    Talking reform and listing all the ills of the Ministry is all well and good, however, parents dealing with MCFD representatives now, in real time need battle information fast and specific to their case.

    I discovered in my travels that most websites are wanting in this regard because they present too much information in a static format, and it is extremely difficult for parents new to all this to pick out the exact information that applies. It is not until after the particular stage you are going through passes that you understand the material on various websites.

    1. where do we go for help

  22. Dude works out his talents, education and experience even on weekends. His comments demonstrate his dedication to the best interest of children. He was sworn, appointed and paid to do his best. And that he does :-)

  23. Where is the copy of the earlier revision of the act?

    I would be happy if immediate changes to the act would include sticking with the 45-day protection hearing time limit, abiding by maximum times in care, and removal as a last resort enforced at the initial report to court or presentation hearing stage.

    I would be even happier if only police with warrants and criminal charges performed removals with college-registered social worker assistance, not the other way around.

  24. Very astute and good observations and counsel Anon 10:59 PM, thanks.

  25. PS Anon 11:01 PM, you wrote both lengthy 1 and 2 pieces above and they are very informative. I would like you to comment re: something you said.

    What advice can you yourself offer or help to which you can point in regard to this quote. "Talking reform and listing all the ills of the Ministry is all well and good, however, parents dealing with MCFD representatives now, in real time need battle information fast and specific to their case."

    "I discovered in my travels that most websites are wanting in this regard because they present too much information in a static format, and it is extremely difficult for parents new to all this to pick out the exact information that applies. It is not until after the particular stage you are going through passes that you understand the material on various websites."

  26. Here! Here! Anon 11:31 PM, if MCFD were actually required by law and the judge to adhere to the existing stipulations of the governing act.

  27. To CW:

    Their is plenty of money for MCFD to work with, but they make a conscious choice at the front lines to remove first, before discussing and offering services, before first using a supervision order.

    The result is extensive legal, foster care, Health, Supervision and other 3rd party costs. Social workers don't have to review and sign off legal bills, health bills are charged to the children's care care, Supervision, I don't know if someone signs anything.

    Does anyone add up these costs in real time as they accumulate for each client?

    The mantra of the social worker is to whine constantly about how their employers keep cutting their budget. If I ask why were not services offerred first, a social worker whines that due to budget cutbacks, constrained supply -- blah blah blah.

    Then I ask the lawyer what his hourly rate is - that's a secret, none of my business. Well, it is $300/hr, two hours to drive to and from his house, an hour or two to meet, minimum half day billed, $1,200.

    The value of a 6-month service that is solely responsible for "satisfying concerns? 1 hour weekly, spread over 26 week,s $35/hr for the counsellor by her words, about $1,000.

    Question: why not do the course first before removal? (Well, we aren't discussing that right now....)

    Perhaps CW, you can answer me these blindingly simple nuts and bolts questions.

    Nothing has to change but the mindset of the front line social worker. STOP REMOVING KIDS PERIOD! LEAVE THE ABORIGINALS ALONE! SAVE FOSTER CARE FEES AND GIVE IT TO PARENTS!
    Life is not that complicated, just do it!

    Offer services for real, just don't check off boxes in intake reports that say you offerred services as a resolution but you didn't. Post ads for more counsellors. Stop removing children. Lets get back to 1993 when there were fewer children in care per capita.

  28. Anon 9:12 - My post was in support of Ron. Simply furthering the discussion. So many removals could be prevented with the prevention to which I was referring. I am sorry you have read my post with such bias. Please read it again for what is written and nothing more. You will see the intent of the comment more clearly.

    I have said before I am in support of child protection workers. Most on this site refuse to accept this, but the "the majority being portrayed here is not the majority, but much much the greater in the minority." There are more compassionate, than vengeful. CP work requires overhaul and advancement in practice in every area. Yes, I support those who are working in best interests. I also support those who are calling for change. Life isn't as straight forward as we all would like.

    Anon 7:18 - As I've said before - reform is needed. You'll get no argument from me. Doesn't mean CP SW's don't deserve support.

    Your post there, is exactly what I was referring to re: "prevention." Thank you for expanding on the thought.

  29. where o where do we go for help

  30. Replies
    1. Hello Anonymous, if you are checking back, then you will see that I found your note posted yesterday. Rather amazing don’t you think, since you were commenting on a post that is 6 years old. But what did you mean PLS. someone help


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