PART 2 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.
Before the Judge will rule to grant a CCO for the reasons stated in (49.5), certain considerations must be made including (1) the parents' conduct toward each and all three children who were in the parents' care, and including (2) the parents' plan of care for the children and of course (3) the children's best interests 49.6.a-c. Unquestionably, Paul and Zabeth have exhibited on the occasion of all their visits with their children over the past two and one half years, a deep love and care for their children, a longing to have their children back home, and they display nothing but understanding, patience, comfort, and love for each child. They have affected housing accommodation so each child has space in the family home to which they can return. There is no question that the two boys have a memory history of their mom and dad and their home half a lifetime ago, and that they still desire to be with their birth parents. And fortunately through a wise action during the past year that placed Baby B in a foster home with her two brothers, this little girl removed as an infant has established filial sibling attachments. Through steady visitation she also has developed a small daughter's relationship to her parents. It is reasonable and necessary that these three children have their best interests and expectations met by returning them to their parental home.
If the Judge will not grant a continuing custody order to the Ministry, then he must issue an order either to return the children to the custody of Paul and Zabeth, or to retain the children in temporary custody of the director or someone other than the parents for a period of time up to six months (49.7.a+b). Of course, from my perspective, the first option is the only reasonable one. The second would be a huge set back and a continuation of the injustice that has characterized this family's life from the end of 2007. It is also possible that if the Judge orders the children to be returned to Paul and Zabeth, this may be with the proviso of a supplementary order authorizing the director to supervise the child's care for six months (49.8). This would be acceptable but not preferable to the Baynes because they have been harassed by this care ministry long enough.
But then the ACT manages to abet the Ministry again because if the Judge has ordered the children to remain in temporary custody of the Director for six months, then 60 days before this provision expires, the director can again apply for a CCO (49.9). So then this would start all over again, waiting for a court date, and living through delays. The judge would face the same options of ruling on the basis of the parents' actions toward their children, the parents' plan of care, and the children's best interests to either grant the order for the continuing care by the director or the return the children to Paul and Zabeth (49.10). And frighteningly, the next time, they may not be heard by a judge with the discernment of Dr. Crabtree. Friends, I get the picture. The question is, does Mary Polak, or DuToit, or Campbell, or Turpel-Lafond,or any of our other leaders who can speak to these issues in the right place at the right times. And where are the Press, the Media, the Journalists who have the vehicles for disseminating news and fact and truth.
This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth.