Monday, July 5, 2010

Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 240 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

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.


  1. To: Anonymous said... (July 4, 2010 9:12 PM in Part 239)

    Bravo, you see through the tactics used by damage control consistently in all media when a damaging news is aired. Doubt is their product. All they do is exploring people's gullibility, the blind faith in government and the lack of knowledge of the real nature of "child protection".

    Be mindful that only about 0.2% of the population is affected by this atrocity. Including their extended family, it won't be more than 1%. Using huge public resources to oppress a small percentage of the population is a very successful strategy and has served special interests very well.

    State-sponsored child removal amounts to enforced disappearance of people as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. It must be stopped at all costs.

  2. Anon 2:01 AM
    Do you recall from what source you obtained the 0.2% and 1% data above. i.e. ".....only about 0.2% of the population is affected by this atrocity. Including their extended family, it won't be more than 1%. "

  3. To: Ron (July 5, 2010 7:03 AM)

    The data source is from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada below:

    The data is from 1999-2001. They are a decade old. No recent data are available on-line. If any bloggers come across more recent data, please publish the sources. Of course, data can be obtained by way of Freedom of Information application. If the ministry does not want to disclose information sought, it usually uses fee (which they are entitled to do so under the FOIPPA) as a deterrence. A dispute on fee often takes years to resolve rendering the data sought obsolete. At times, applicants have to go to court to force the government to compel. The high profile legal dispute between MCFD and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond of RCY in May 2010 over the right to view MCFD “confidential” documents proves the foregoing. That's how transparent and responsible our government is.

    The ratio of 0.2% is established by dividing the number of Completed Child Protection Investigations in Table 2.a with the population of BC in the corresponding years. Be mindful that the small percentage does not mean that the majority of the population could ignore this serious problem. Any parents with children under age 19 could be affected. All it takes is just a phone call. Special interests in the "child protection" industry are aware that they must keep this ratio below a certain threshold not to attract public attention and to trigger social unrest.

    From a research perspective, it is insightful to seek information such as legal fees incurred in MCFD's operations (further categorized in the areas of MCFD launched applications, defence of lawsuits in wrongful deaths of children in "care", other parents filed suits against MCFD). It is also informative to discover the fees paid to shrinks on MCFD's approved list and the frequency of producing a pro MCFD psychological reports.

    Canadians may have difficulty to believe that corruption exists in an elected government. Let facts speak for themselves.

  4. Thank you for the link and the further commentary.

  5. "Special interests in 'child protection' industry are aware that they must keep this ratio below a certain threshold not to attract public attention and to trigger social unrest."

    ...Care to clarify?

  6. At least nine of 10 destroyed families come from the lowest group among exploited second class citizens. The most unfortunate were raised in corrupt State Care to be inadequate parents, expected to have many offspring to feed the beast. Bayne's, like my case, is exceptional by many factors. Only murdered children, or some frenzy attracts media attention. All is soon forgotten, erased from memory and from internet. An 12 years old example:

    Child apprehension numbers on the rise

    A number of child apprehensions in the Quesnel area prompted angry remarks by a Family Court judge and calls for then Children and Families Minister Penny Priddy's head.

    From late November until early February, when Carrier-Chilcotin Tribal Council Chief Roger Jimmie warned social workers and all other outsiders to stay away from the Kluskus First Nation, 63 children in the area were taken from their families. Twenty-two or 23 of those children are Aboriginal.

    The apprehensions began in response to a government audit. The member of the provincial legislature for the area, Cariboo North Liberal MLA Dr. John Wilson, told Raven's Eye he hasn't been able to find out what prompted the audit.

    "We don't have that answer," Wilson said.

    A ministry spokesman said the provincial ombudsman for child and family issues, Child Protection Commissioner Cynthia Morton, ordered an audit of the Quesnel office after a review of a case in the area suggested problems in the region. Several local sources say the social workers have long complained about a lack of support from the Clark government.

    "It all gets back to money," said United Native Nations British Columbia President Viola Thomas. "There's a new law and a new policy, but there's no commitment on the part of ministry to back it. The changes created by the Gove Report don't do any good without money to back it up, and the government is refusing to spend any money."

    Several deaths of children in provincial care during the last few years prompted a provincial inquiry which led to the Gove Report. The report resulted in more than 100 recommendations on ways to improve social services in the province.

  7. Addendum from Gove Report: "Matthew was born to a mother who had been taken into the ministry's care when she was eight years old. Verna Vaudreuil had been severly emotionally rejected, neglected and physically and sexually abused. She went through numerous foster home placements while in the ministry's care and, by the time she turned 19, the ministry knew that she was incapable of financial self-sufficiency and of living independently."

  8. Ron; I think it must be obvious that if there is to be any justice at all, parents must be furnished with legal services that are as good as the ministry gets. At $300 per hour, I believe a full day comes to about $2,500 a day. That is what the Baynes' first lawyer charged them for sitting in for an hour or so in mediation, so we can probably assume that Finn Jensen in a 20 day hearing gets a minimum of $50,000. With miscellaneous hearings, briefings etc, it was probably closer to $100,000.
    The Baynes' first lawyer charged $60,000, without getting them anywhere that I could see. When they went broke he dropped them and sued for more.
    No other lawyer would take the case for less than a guarantee of $50,000 to $100,000.Regardless of the merits, or demerits of the case, they would have been almost sure to lose the children for ever, Just because the social workers could outgun them with legal funds. This is so patently unjust that it is self-evident. This should be one of the burning concerns of the every member of the assembly, of the youth and child advocate and of the attorney general. Only the rich get to keep their kids?
    Ron; I must say that I am getting a little tired of the readers/writers who insist on a sinister plot. You don't have to look for a canary when there are plenty of sparrows around. Just look at the Bayne case. The evidence showed clearly that there was plenty of ignorance,stupity and vindictiveness working against the best interests of the children. Those who committed many egregious acts were well shielded by the law and the deep legal pockets of the ministry. This can be repeated many times. It is well to bear in mind that all this went on with the full knowledge and approval of the top ranks in Victoria. This has been the case with every other case that I know about. So we can see that this irrational behaviour is ingrained at every level. With that much incompetence, you do not need to look for a plot. Pulleeeease!
    Another thing that keeps coming up is that foster parents get bad-mouthed all the time. When I have finished my topic of assessment, I think I owe it to foster parents to write about the magnificent people I have met doing foster parenting. They are often co-victims with other people. I feel every sympathy with the lady who signs herself as Tracy. She is most likely a very caring person who got stuck in the middle and is no way at fault.


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