Saturday, July 24, 2010

JUSTICE / Part 257 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

An original song entitled ‘Justice’ written by Tom Simanek and Rob Elliott is performed by Rob Elliott in dedication to the struggle to reunite families that have been shattered by the family courts. A video using this song’s lyrics has been prepared by Linda McDermott, Dave Ellison, Shaun O'Connell, Layton Bevan and Julia Langmaid. You can listen and watch this on YouTube at this link.


The race-car bed is empty,
no toys are on the floor,
not many changes you can see...
but Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here any more...
never coming through that door.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A scrap of legal paper,
an expert testifies,
the child you love is taken...
but justice doesn't live here,
doesn't live here, it's a lie...
nothing you can do but cry.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A judgement not of Solomon,
no wisdom in the words,
and after all is said and done...
your Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here and what's worse...
nothing lives here but the hurt.
Nothing lives here but the hurt.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

copyright 2009 Simanek/Elliott


  1. The youtube video has a few interesting statistics that flash by during playback.

    This is a U.K. originated submission that has something under 4,000 views over a 6 month period, and it summarizes the problems of child removals, which is greater than in Canada.

    In the U.K. 60,900 children are in care (compared to 14,400 in B.C. alone). Of the 4,000 cases investigated each year, 3,000 children are removed, with just a 6% return rate. In the U.S. the rate of return is 42%. Foster care homes are paid £400 per WEEK per child, which Google says is $640 Canadian dollars.

    This gives rise to questions I have as to what the statistics are for Canada and how these are obtained. For countries that do not have child protection infrastructurs that are separate from criminal courts, what are their abuse statistics?

    If in just B.C. there are 30,000 calls to MCFD annually, how many of these resulted in investigations, how many of those are removed? How many children returned? (ie. what is the success rate of "educational" services.)

    Questions specific to the Baynes trial:
    How many CFCSA cases has Judge Crabtree presided over during his career? How many CCO applications has he approved / rejected?

    Another U.K. movie with a higher view count, I looked at the associated webpage at, an incredibly long page with far too much information and no categorization.

    The point that stuck out in the mass of information on this page was the observation that criminals facing 6 months or more in jail can have a Jury trial, so why not CCO applications where the consequences are lifelong and permanent?

    Another statistic on this page popped out, of 8,173 continuing care orders, only 21 were refused. What are the BC Statistics on this, and broken down by judges and districts?

    One commenter of the movie observed they did not know how widespread the problem was. At less than 4,000 views over the past 6 months, youtube home made videos are likely not the best way to communicate such problems to the public, but they do obligate posters to distill out the most important information; this just needs to be extracted out and put onto a "short" web page that can be searched so the information has a wider audience.

    Parents who have had their children removed, subsequently returned, or not, KNOW the system does not take these actions because of a belief children are being protected and families are being properly served to remedy the situation.

    The motive proposed by afflicted parents is that the people involved benefit financially and have a vested self-interest, who have little real interest in the children or the families, neither do they care about damage done.

    Officials do not have to explain or defend because the "due process" is employed and checks and balances that exist reduce errors and permit recourse.

    We should also be vigilant on identifying what is clearly working, and examine those families that have had an ideal, successful interventions, they like the social worker and agree with the process, and it exactly following CFCSA guidelines. I am still searching for such cases.

  2. Ron; today I would like to pick up where I left off yesterday in responding to anon 5.45. I think that it would be a big mistake to get into too much quibbling about the details of the medical evidence,because I think that there is a much more serious matter at issue here.
    The issue is this. The whole ministry case rests on the evidence of Dr. Colbourne. However, her opinion has been questioned by numerous reputable experts who gave sound scientific reasons for their opinions. The ministry staff and the courts have known for well over two years that Colbourne's opinion was much in dispute and was questionable. Whether she was right or wrong, her evidence could not be considered completely reliable and certainly not reliable enough to support a continuing care order.
    Even the ministry's own lawyer did not consider that the case could succeed with proper defense. He long ago counselled the immediate return of the two boys.
    So the real issue is that for well over two years the ministry staff have known that the case was not sound, and yet they have pursued it mercilessly. No wonder readers of this blog feel compelled to ask over and again "What sort of people are these?" "What is the mental make-up of protection social workers who can inflict such cruelty on a family for nearly three years?"
    I would like to pose the following question to everyone who played a role in the Bayne case. I ask this of Loren Humeny, Behre Gulbot, Kimberly Grey,John Fitzsimmons, Bruce McNeill, Leslie Dutoit and yes, even of Mary Polak. "Did you ever ask yourself the question suppose, just suppose that Dr. Colbourne was mistaken and just suppose that the Baynes are loving parents who would never hurt one of their precious children. Just suppose that they have done nothing wrong at all? When you think about that possibility, are you filled with horror at the cruelty that has been inflicted on every member of this family for almost three years? Does this raise a glimmer of compassion in any of your hearts? If it does, why is it that not one of you has shown anything but hostility towards this family? Was there a single one of you tried to stand up to a superior on the issue?"
    I know that a lot of you feel beleaguered and under attack and believe me, having walked in your shoes, I know what it is to be flung into fray with scant training, lousy supervision and no leadership. Please understand that as long as there are cases like the Bayne case--and there are many of them, the public will be fully justified in asking what sort of people you really are. Your only path is to conduct your own work with integrity and compassion.You must find your own dignity because no one can do it for you.
    Ron; next week I would like to write about child welfare legislation in British Columbia and how we arrived at getting the completely dysfunctional Child Family and Community Services Act. I think that an act which can produce many cases like the Baynes proves itself to be dysfunctional without a doubt. An act which can keep young children in limbo for years and bring financial ruin on parents who fight for their children.

  3. To those who want to learn more about CPS in the UK, please watch:

    (Forced Adoption - UK selling children for money)

    (Forced Adoptions in Britain)

    There is nothing new under the sun. Countries where government has the power to remove children from their parents always have the same problems.

    The first video contains several guidelines useful to parents under MCFD scrutiny, which are noteworthy to reiterate:

    1. Never contact social services for service or advice.

    2. Never believe a work they say and always insist they put their promises in writing.

    3. Never, never, never sign any documents they present to you, even if they say "you have to!" Social workers rely on bluff. In reality, they have no power and no right to threaten you or give you order of any kind!

    4. Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say that it is temporary).

    5. Never answer questions at case meetings, in court, or when you are being assessed by so-called "experts". Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible. Never explain or elaborate.

    6. Protect yourself against social workers barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door. To break the chain which would be a "forced entry" and a criminal offence.

    The last one does not work in reality as CP SW often threaten to scoop up children at school if parents don't allow them inside their residence. Most parents will bend.

  4. I think we should welcome all forms of media that expose child protection for what it is, regardless of youtube counters, which may or may not be accurate.

    As far as what kind of people could inflict this suffering on the Baynes and their children, well, I couldn't express my thoughts on that without being censored. But suffice it to say these can't be the compassionate protectors they pretend to be.

  5. Sorry, there was a typo in point 2 of my previous submission sent on July 24, 2010 11:28 AM.

    "Never believe a work they say and always insist they put their promises in writing."

    should read:

    "Never believe a word they say and always insist they put their promises in writing."

  6. Asking social workers to put anything in writing may be pointless if they believe you are too organized and may use their communications against them in the future, so to add to Anon 11:35 AM and 11:28 AM, look at these precautions as well:

    1. Secretly record all conversations including phone, meeting, psychologist, lawyer, counsellor, visitations, "private" conversations with your children, and any adversarial family members or others feeding MCFD with information. You may never get to use it in court, but you may need to jog your memory and these might save your bacon some day.

    2. Write a letter or email after the conversation with social workers that lists matters discussed (because they may not write a follow-up letter, but may respond to your communication, which confirms receipt and any clarification.)

    3. Request black book notes, updated intake reports, risk assessments and internal emails and match up the information and timelines with your own notes and recordings. Social workers will often shift dates of significant events in their favour thinking you will have forgotten precisely when they happened.

    4. Ask for advice and "services", they love that, and you get them talking instead of vice versa.

  7. I would also very seriously consider home schooling your children, even if it means financial hardship, or going without, as many, many children are taken from their parents because of what a teacher tells a social worker or what a social worker in a school supposedly observes. Many children are also apprehended at school - on Friday afternoon, so you can't get to court until Monday.

    Also, children who are home schooled do better academically and are not subjected to the same awful influences to which children in the public system are subjected.

    Children who are home schooled have plenty of opportunity for social interaction, despite what the nanny state and home schooling critics would have you believe.

    Here is a home schooling website for BC:

    I note that they also seem to have some sort of legal defence funds available for members who are targeted by MCFD, though the chances of MCFD coming after a home schooled child is probably less likely, given that they can't just take them from school on Friday afternoon, and given the fact that they can't have fabricated school social worker testimony since the child is not in school, and since MCFD likes easy pickins, and home schoolers aren't as easy a target as an individual family who is not part of any group. In this regard, it is always better for parents to be a part of a group - such as a strongly supportive religious group - than not.

    "Many colleges and universities actively pursue homeschooled students because of their self-motivation, maturity, creativity, and independent thinking skills..."


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