Friday, July 23, 2010

THE DREAM IS ALIVE / Part 256 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

This is a family of five. Only the number of family members is the same as the Bayne family. This family however, is unsupervised and unrestricted by the seeming invasionary interference of MCFD. The spontaneity and independence of this pictured family is what the Baynes dream about - living together, hand in hand, happy, free, walking away from a dark nightmare. And contrary to the predictable false suggestions of MCFD workers, these children (the two boys who can remember life at home) are eager to GO HOME.

Paul and Zabeth are road warriors already. After all it has been two years and nine months that they have been deprived of their children. Their youngest child was two months old when she was removed from her home and from her parents' custody and care. That inordinate length of time will factor surely into the case their attorney makes against B.C.'s Ministry of Children and Family Development. Some within the Ministry assume a level of authority beyond even the seeming excessive power that has been granted to the Ministry in order to protect children. It has already been shown in the court case thus far and it will become blatantly obvious in the case conclusion, that the Ministry has strided far past its generous permissions in its hard treatment of the Baynes.

Paul and Zabeth have steeled themselves to the indignities they suffer on a weekly basis so that they will not jeopardize the little amount of time that they are permitted to have with their own children. They have had to be so careful. Their time with the children, three hours on each of two afternoons per week, is closely scrutinized. This scrutiny comes from the person who drives the vehicle that transports the children. This driver is not a Ministry employee but works for an independent company which is contracted by the Ministry. The driver makes notes throughout the three hours while watching the five Baynes play, pray, sing, laugh, embrace. The driver has been carefully instructed to record conduct and behaviour of parents with children, attitude, comments made. These notes are provided to the Ministry for their file on these parents. This driver employee polices the Bayne parents by censuring harmless actions or activities under threat that non compliance will result in removal of visitation privilege.

This court case is active. The next series of Court Days are scheduled for August 8-13 at the Chilliwack Court House.


  1. To: Anonymous said... (July 22, 2010 7:15 PM in Part 255)

    "Theres no way that MCFD can keep being blamed for all that is bad when there is this much anonymity involved!"

    Are you hiding behind anonymity yourself? Why don't you identify yourself first?

    I am sure you are aware that MCFD removed children based on anonymous reports (allegedly to protect whistle blowers, hence permitting various parties to abuse child removal authority for purposes other than child protection). Why don't you go to MCFD and complain about this if you have a problem with anonymity?

    One important purpose of this blog is to allow people to openly and freely discuss the activities of MCFD on families without fear of reprisal. Anonymity is necessary to protect those who speak against MCFD from retaliation. Abusing child removal authority to retaliate on parents who disagree or exposing the wrongdoings of CP SW is a common practice of "child protection" agency in most English-speaking nations. The Bayne's case is an example to prove the foregoing.

    Speaking of fashion show audience in court, CP SW are good at this. SW unrelated to a case often appear in court in support of their colleagues, doing nothing (not even taking notes), wasting numerous work hours and tax dollars. This suggests poor internal management.

  2. Today's blog is a good description of supervised visits. MCFD tactfully creates "impartial" third parties to scrutinize families and fabricate evidence. Visitation workers (as they are called) are just one breed. MCFD paid shrinks, foster parents, surveillance agents, ... etc. are all fed by the same hand which they seldom bite.

    One would image such corrupted and oppressive system that reduces humanity to the level of brute could only happen in totalitarian countries and dark era like the Cultural Revolution in China from 1966 to 1975. This is happening on a daily basis to a small number of families in a free and democratic Canada, the "best" place on earth to live.

  3. In my submission sent on July 23, 2010 12:36 AM, the Cultural Revolution in China officially ended with Mao Zedong's death in 1976, not 1975 as previously stated. My apology for this factual error.

  4. Supervised access is a good intervention for parents who have emotionally or physically abused their children. It's also good for some parents with serious mental illness or severe drug addiction. But when it isn't necessary, it does nothing but harm the parent-child relationship. Parents are scolded for not showing enough affection, showing too much affection, not bringing the right snack food. Some parents aren't allowed to bring presents or anything at all to the visits. Children can't be themselves because they know a stranger is watching them. The reports the supervisors write don't always reflect the truth of the visits.

  5. I'd rather collect pop bottles out of garbage cans than stoop to being a "Visitation worker" - there's far more honour in the former, that's for sure.

  6. Posst 161 has a more extensive commentary on supervised visits.

  7. MCFD and their lawyers should take note:

    "... for the first time the Supreme Court has said that damages are an appropriate remedy for the violation of a person’s Charter rights,”

    And I can't think of anyone's rights that are violated more than the parents and children who are destroyed by MCFD.

    Read more:

  8. MCFD use supervision as its front line weapon against parents. The stated purpose of supervision is that it protects children from their parents, and MCFD must meet the CFCSA mandated requirement to preserve parent/child relationships during the litigation process.

    Imposition of supervision preserves the Ministry facade parents are perpetually dangerous to their children. The taxpayer is the one that pays through the nose for this arrangement.

    The way supervision is supposed to be used is to determine of the parents demonstrate anger or inappropriate parenting during the first few visits, so this can be conveyed to a judge, who would then decide whether or not to continue supervision.

    The reality is that supervision is ALWAYS imposed in removal cases, because permitting even one unsupervised visit before a protection hearing means the Ministry should have first applied for a supervision order in the first place. Hence, this explains the lack of success by the Baynes in obtaining unsupervised visits.

    Imposing supervision is also a psychological attack on parents that ministry uses to convey to children their parents are dangerous and that the foster parents and social workers are the good guys who are protecting them from the harm from their parents.

    The fact the Ministry pays for supervision, and must do so by CFCSA law is the clearest indication parents are innocent until proven guilty. The Ministry has to assume all costs of child care during litigation without possibility of recovery of costs from the parents.

    One would logically think social workers would wish to streamline the processing of such cases to minimize taxpayer costs, but the reverse appears to be true.

    The minimum cost of supervision is $40 per hour, and doubles during holidays. Driving adds $40 per hour, so pickup and delivery of children outside the supervision time is added to the cost.

    Note taking costs extra, perhaps as little as $25 per report. More typical all-inclusive costs of $100 per hour apply where visits occur within a special facility or in the community. So, for the 52 weeks, the minimum cost of 9 hours daily is $18,720. At a $100 cost per hour estimate, this rises to $46,800 yearly

    Excluding health and legal costs associated with this intervention, the two cost components of supervision and foster care alone means a family would need to earn about $146,000 yearly to pay for the Baynes 3 children (35% income tax deduction).

    The Ministry's own figures show a total cost per child in care at $31,170. Simply dividing out the 1.4 billion dollar budge with the 14,000+ children in care gives an average $100,000 cost per child. Ouch.

    Visitation is one area where all parents are not treated equally. It appears to me that the Ministry has no set standards to ensure all parents and children are treated equally in terms of the allotted time for visits. So if one parent gets more time, another parent using the same limited supervision facility gets less.

    It appears also, that supervision availability is artificially constrained, so rather than hire more workers, social workers play a lottery and shell game with judges to minimize visitations.

    All parents should get the same 9 hours of access weekly the Baynes are getting (out of the available 168 hours in a week). Less visitation time when parents are assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, is cruel and unusual punishment for child and parent, and a source of proven long term psychological damage.

    See blog #161 for more details on the various flavours of supervision.

  9. Anon, at July 23, 2010 10:47 am

    As far as I can see, all of this is "cruel and unusual punishment." The only reason it continues is because the public is totally in the dark.

  10. Totally in the dark. But not for long. Thanks to this blog and other media.

  11. The police news release on the Cameron Ward decision notes the officers "acted in good faith", which I gather simply means the officers personally don't have to pay anything their employer covers the $5,000 fine for their wrongdoing.

    I imagine from this story, the same exemption would apply to social workers for a removal that is eventually found to be unwarranted, and the Province should still be on the hook for damages.

    $5,000 for every four hours, let's see, multiply by 6 for the day - $30,000 per day, nearly 30 million for 2-1/2 years. Sounds about right for the Bayne's ordeal.

    This means a similar precedent is needed for child removals. A class action jury suit would likely do the trick.

    It does appear the same mentality to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to appeal all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court is not restricted to just MCFD.

  12. Regarding an award of millions for families that have been destroyed by MCFD if the new damages for violations of Charter rights were to come into effect:

    I would welcome this; I don't care if means spending tax dollars. Look at what we waste tax dollars on now. Nothing can be more important than some kind of restitution for the victims of this brutal regime known as MCFD. The hell they put children through, and parents through (not to mention all the extended family and friends) NEEDS to be compensated. It may take a few years, but eventually the truth will out, and there will be compensation.

  13. AUGUST

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31

    Please note August 8 is a Sunday.

    When is the Bayne Trial set to resume?

  14. Anon 7:14 PM
    The dates of the court sessions are August 9-13. Sorry for the confusion.


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