My own life is almost spent. Sure I may have many years to live. Yet my energetic working years are done. The strong blond man of my high school and college years lives only in pictures seldom viewed by anyone. My children now in their own mid years don’t remember me in my youth. In their minds they have only grown accustomed to the ‘me’ with escalating limitations. Their children will always know me ‘old.’ Papa and Grandpa I am.
I am not complaining mind you. This is life. It’s good. There are large measures of joy and satisfaction attached to this personal definition of life in Canada. Last evening I went to White Rock with three of my grandchildren to enjoy an ice cream cone at Andy's. We walked one the rocks near the water, skipped stones on the surface, and laughed.
That’s why the wounded lives of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their children K, B and Baby B have troubled me so much and for so long. That's why the Court Case, the result of which will determine whether the children can come back to their parents or whether they must be forced to become adopted children to adoptive parents, is one of the most important events in B.C. right now. That's the way I see it anyway. It is only one family of course. However, this single case forecasts the likelihood of an overhaul of the structure, protocol, personnel and policies of this beleaguered child protection agency. It is unthinkable that the Judge's conclusion might greenlight further injustices to more innocent parents and children as zeal and power without wisdom decides the lives of citizens.
The Baynes should not be enduring this broken family unit, the financial ruin, the daily tears, the eyes of three children filled with worry and doubt about so many things that should not harass a child in Canada.
Justice needs to be served on a silver platter to this family so that what remains of three children’s formative years will be spent in the affectionate and daily embrace of parents who love them so tenaciously that they will plead ardently until the custody of their children is restored to them. They will also unceasingly declare their innocence. Innocent, they will never admit to a guilt that is implied by a two and one half year old medical diagnosis of baby B with which a long list of medical professionals disagree. This court case, painfully lengthy, will validate the Baynes as worthy parents who have suffered an incalculably horrific two and a half year travesty of human rights, freedom and justice. Court resumes August 8-13th.
To: The Baynes
ReplyDelete"A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not snuff out." (Isaiah 42:3)
"The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace."
Although I will not be there to support you in August, my prayer will be with you. Your victory rests with God.
You post saddens me greatly this morning. I have one grandchild and one grandbaby on the way but because of what happened to my family when MCFD got involved, I may never meet either one of them. I have not even seen my grandchild except in pictures. My daughter, the mother, was taken from me when she was 13. She tried running away back to me four times and was re-removed four times. She was so scarred by what happened to her and she blames me for everything that happened to her in care. I do have a court order stating MCFD is not to get involved if I go to court for access but according to my family, social workers have warned my daughter that if she allows me access, the child will be removed. I want the chance to tell my grandchildren that I love them. I want to hold my new grandchild when it is born. I want to be a part of their lives but I may never have that. I served my daughter once but it felt so wrong. There is nothing right about a mother taking a daughter to court. I dropped it because I know this is all because of MCFD. I thought nothing worse than having my children taken away could happen but I was wrong. Being deprived of my daughter's pregnancy experience and the first few years of my grandchilren's lives causes me so much grief that I may never get over.
ReplyDeleteThis is so brutally unjust. How many more stories are there like the Baynes and the woman who has just posted above. It's so obvious that this is the worst kind of torture a family - parents and children and grandchildren, not to mention extended family and friends - can endure.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think that this is all done in the name of "child protection," and paid for by us all via tax dollars.
I don't see how Judge Crabtree can possibly do anything but give the children back to the Baynes. To do otherwise would be an abomination of justice.
During the last few days several people have speculated on what sort of people these child protection social workers are and how they can be so callous in their work.
ReplyDeleteSince I retired and took up some advocacy work, I have asked myself the same question many times. At first I deluded myself that the internal review systems and other safeguards would work to protect clients from abuse. I encouraged people to follow proper appeal steps and I helped them to prepare their cases. I was convinced that there was just some sort of miscommunication and I would soon sort it out. So I went along to interviews with clients and what an eye-opener. To start with it was useless to talk with the social workers, because they were so clueless and would simply say that they would have to ask the supervisor.They would give completely incorrect information about what was in the Act. So we make an appointment with the supervisor and wait weeks for the interview. The supervisor stonewalls and refuses to answer any questions. No result.Another time I went to the office with a client- a senior civil servant. We showed the worker a court order giving him sole custody of his two children because his wife was considered to be dangerous. It was the duty of the worker to assist him to protect his children. She had absconded with the children and all he wanted to know was if they knew where she was. We spent an hour with the worker and an hour with the supervisor before persuading them to do their job. A ten minute job took two hours of two people's time. Time and again I found that people just did not want to do their jobs and did not even know what their responsiblity was
Of course in retrospect I should have guessed. I attended superisors meetings for years and I figured that only one supervisor in three was able to maintain focus and clarity of thought. I have supervised many staff and I found that many people with master's degrees had no more ability for rigour of thought than anyone else.
Even though well-intentioned, many of the staff were rigid and unable to deal with dilemma, or to re-assess the situation on new information. Many were only fair to middling in communication skills. Others could not refrain from imposing their values on others in most inappropriate ways.
I found that few workers worked systematically on case-plans and never closed cases. Even though they did little work, they would point to their large caseloads and claim overwork.
In general I found that the quality of work in an office depended on the calibre of the supervisor. Good supervisors attracted better workers. Slack supervisors attracted slack workers. I doubt that any of these people were wantonly cruel. They were insensitive, rigid and badly led. Unskilled people constantly get themselves into jams and they do not know how they got there. The easy way out is always to blame the client and to re-interpret the truth as convenient. Of course they never lie!!
I recently attended a meeting with a new case, social worker and lawyer. The woman had some marked personality problems and it is possible that her child was at risk, but I could not tell from the information available. The lawyer ran the meeting and was incredibly hostile and aggressive to me and the client. It was shocking even to an old hand like me. The woman responded in kind. At the end of the meeting, when things seemed to have calmed down a bit I said "You know a little kindness would not hurt." The social worker screamed "Why should I be kind to her, she isn't kind to me. She says nasty things about me." What on earth has the profession come to?
The post of Anon 5:31 sound like the one who helped save one child from my family from suffering a similar fate. My interpretation is that now, Anon is treating the MCFD intervention as an oyster would treat an irritant that serves as the stimulus to start making pearls; similarily, Anon now helps other parents.
ReplyDeleteThe social workers involved in my case implied a similar warning that if the opposing parent they did not like, attempted to exercise unsupervised access they would re-remove. The testing of this threat is pending.
Imagine, living in fear of the words of a social worker threatening to take a completely innocent child away from their family and knowing that this was not an idle threat, and nothing could be done to prevent it.
The casual observer might think, well, perhaps Anon’s daughter will read these posts, recognize herself and call up her parent and let bygones be bygones. The reality is that the natural tendency is to want to distance oneself from such trauma, not to associate with those that would cause re-living the nightmare. Nothing is impossible, but it is not simple to remedy such damage.
The common thread of the various stories on this blog, and even Ray Ferris’ accounts is that MCFD and child protection is an immutable force and nothing can be done except to post rants. The growing public awareness of the problems with child protection is making a difference, don’t kid yourself that eventually a "cure" will be found for MCFD.
I probably sound like every other parent out there when I say I didn't deserve to have my children taken from me but I don't believe I did. I don't believe I did anything to deserve the severity of the results. I have worked for years to rebuild the bond destroyed between me and my children and as I said in an earlier post, I may never meet my own grandchildren. MCFD did not have any proof of anything they alleged and the whole court process was based on hearsay. In fact, court had very little to do with me as a mother or the best interests of my children. It was the most horrendous experience I've ever had. Being forced to defend myself against things that can't be proven or disproven is very hard. MCFD changed the future for my children and myself whether we deserved it or not.
ReplyDeleteJust remember everyone, please, Court for the Baynes and their children resumes August 8-13th.
ReplyDeleteTHE FATE OF THE BAYNES AND THEIR CHILDREN:
Court resumes August 8-13th.
And whatever happens then will also have enormous consequences for all children and families in this province.
Please do everything you can to attend when
Court resumes August 8-13th.
And, not to be superficial, but it does make a difference, look your absolute best.
Not to be superficial but to look your absolute best? What on earth does that have to do with anything? And why would you even be concerned about it? The focus should be the parties involved, not a fashion show audience!
ReplyDeleteAnd Ron I am just curious. How can it keep being said that there is a long list of medical pro's who disagree with baby B's diagnosis when not one of them have ever physically examined this child or any of the Bayne kids for that matter?
And to all of you who keep saying you did nothing wrong to prompt a removal of your children. who knows if you did or not? You hide behind anonymity like so many of us out here. How can anyone know the truth?
Theres no way that MCFD can keep being blamed for all that is bad when there is this much anonymity involved!
To the anonymous person who said 'to all of you who say you did nothing wrong to prompt the removal of your children':
ReplyDeleteDo you think a parent should lose their child for good over a false allegation? Do you think MCFD should have the right to go to court and present incorrect information? Do you think MCFD should be allowed to remove children based on allegations made by a person's ex-spouse? A vindictive ex spouse that just want to hurt the other parent can say and do a lot of things to make that parent look bad and because MCFD doesn't take the time to collect proof, they just take kids away whether the information is true or not. Who knows whether or not I am a good mother. Before my kids were taken I thought I was the best mother in the world. I thought I loved my kids way more than other parents. In the seven years that I have lived childless, I've had nothing but time to reflect on my ability to parent. Were they right in taking in my kids? Or were they wrong to take them? In any event, I am an average mother. I didn't abuse or neglect my children, I didn't do anything but mother my children the best way I knew how.
Who are you to judge? I'm sure every parent out there thinks there children shouldn't have been taken but sometimes it's true. There are so many parents who judge those who've had their kids taken just because of that but the truth is that MCFD does not take the time to thoroughly investigate, they do not perform proper assessments, they collect one sided information, they don't work with the laws that have been written to protect us; they in fact can override pretty much any law they want. The fact that they don't provide evidence for their allegations says something in itself.
There are so many nasty, cruel, judgmental people out there who think they know so much about what goes on in the world. People turn their nose up at parents who've had their children taken away and all I can say is: you need to wake up. MCFD receives complaints and investigates. They ask people questions, look into school/medical records and whatever else. They form an 'opinion' based on what 'community members' and 'community professionals' say about the parents. They may not find any cold, hard facts proving abuse or neglect but they take the child away and it's months before a trial happens..if it happens at all. In the meantime social workers try to convince the parent to sign a consent even if there was no abuse or neglect. If the parent refuses, they are considered hostile and uncooperative. If you really think about the consequences of not providing proof in court for allegations, you will realize that there is a large possibility that many children were removed without good reason. Proof should be an absolute must when dealing with the futures of children. As for the people who want to judge us (the parents of removed children), it could easily be you that has to face all the humiliation and embarrassment of walking childlessly down the road.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 5.45.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of whether or not the dissenting experts had examined the child or not is irrelevant. I have read every piece of medical information on this case. Every test result, every medical report and all the data by the dissenting experts.
I draw your attention to three salient points. The Goudge report seriously questioned the whole shaken baby syndrome hypothesis as scientifically unproven and said it could not be used as reliable evidence. This has no bearing on who or who may not have examined a child.
Two. Two of the experts were biomechanical experts at the Phd level. They both showed that the SBS hypothesis was scientfically unsoundl.In layman's terms they said that if you shook a bably so hard that you damaged the brain, you would kill it by breaking its neck first. No need for them to examine a baby. They also pointed out that you would cause severe bruising etc. All the experts also pointed out that there were many minor causes that could cause a similar injury. A light bump on the head on a fragile premature baby could easily cause the brain bleed suffered by the Bayne infant.Of more concern and a point of criticism was that the long delay before the doctors who repeatedly examined the child made a correct diagnosis. The delay in treatment could have been fatal.
Third. The obvious mistake that Dr. Colbourne made and one which any GP could have picked out right away was that she failed completely to make a differential diagnosis. The experts pointed out numerous alternative causes which she chose to ignore. JUst as coroner Charles Smith did when he caused the Goudge inquiry.
Oh, I know Anon 5.45 that simple explanations are tempting. In fact the only defense of her negligence that Colbourne was able to offer was that the other doctors had not examined the child. But a number of other doctors had and they left enough detailed notes to provide material for the other experts. I hope that your mind is not as closed as Doctor Colbournes was ant that you can cope with a complex answer, rather than a simple one.
Why not allow a couple of the experts who have not yet had the opportunity to examine Bethany personally, do so now and present their findings to judge Crabtree.
ReplyDeleteI understand that long term effects of SBS include motor function impairment, vision impairment and cognitive difficulties.
MCFD has apparently attempted to present a picture that supports these long term effects by having a cerebral palsy diagnosis, fitting Bethany with walking braces even though she doesn't need them, and suggesting her vision is impaired when it is not.
Despite the foster mom's remarks that allude to Bethany having severe problems, visits reveal the little girl apparently sees and walks fine without braces.
Instead, we only hear a tightly filtered picture the Ministry presents that supports its case against the parents.
I've read all the doctors reports. Someone might be able to state that one or two such reports were "bought" by these now-pennyless parents, but certainly not 10 such experts spread out over the country. These cannot all be ignored.
It is readily apparent that the common theme of the Bayne's doctor reports is the observation of a 3 weeks of delay in getting CT and MRI scans done. Early examination and diagnosis would have quickly caught the severity of the problem before Bethany's head continued swelling. The long-delayed treatment is now a more likely explanation for any long term damages.
Where is the second opinion by a biomechanical expert, since Dr. Colbourne has no such expertise? Where is the spinal whiplash neck injury an SBS diagnosis requires? This case does not scream abuse, it screams medical incompetence.
The single-point impact injuries support the parents explanation, rather than multiple damage points in the brain and eyes that characterize SBS. These doctors point out in unison the SBS diagnosis of Dr. Colbourne is not supported by the supplied evidence.
The loss of Dr. Colbourne to MCFD for supplying abuse cases for removal would surely be a huge loss to the Ministry, so I can certainly see them pulling out all the stops to save her.
If the Baynes have their children returned, all future such diagnosis' by Dr. Colbourne would be much easier for other parents to discredit. Dr. Colbourne would become a ball and chain for the Ministry rather than a reliable source of babies to be adopted.
What should be abundantly clear in witnessing the testimony of the various Ministry witnesses over the past three weeks of trial is that none of the people involved can be trusted, as they are not collecting and presenting information impartially. MCFD is trying too hard to eliminate the power of the judge to determine objectively the best outcome for the three children.
MCFD has pulled out all the stops to create an advantage for themselves in this case in order to win. Even if they were minimally successful in getting a supervision order, the damage to their credibility is permanent.
Another significant complicating factor for the Ministry is the boys, who don't have a history of abuse or unexplained injuries. Like Bethany, their development is behind the norm, but this cannot be attributed to parental mistreatment.
It would appear to me from reading all the medical reports posted online that the Baynes fulfilled and exceeded their parental responsibilities in bringing Bethany to the hospital, repeatedly, and quickly.
The dozen or so doctors collectively waited weeks before having a CT and MRI scans done that would have permitted earlier diagnosis and remedy. A delay of mere hours, let alone days and weeks is a basis for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit.
Dr. Colbourne must surely be pooping her pants waiting for the outcome of this case.
Three weeks of delay and continually sending the parents back home when the medical community was advised up front of a severe impact injury is inexcusable.
For a more balanced view of shaken baby syndrome, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome
I can't help but laugh at Anon 7:15's remarks about not knowing the "truth" of parent's anonymous posts. A post with a name attached would become "evidence" that would show up in that person's ministry file. This poster is more free to post their name without repercussions than a parent would be.
ReplyDeleteParents do not indeed have much of a voice to say they were wronged by the system after they have gone through a protection hearing and have "lost." All they can do is post their experience and leave it up to the reader to decide. Personally, I'm more interested in success stories and details on how parents succeeded in having their children returned.
In my case, I won, and my children were returned without restrictions, no supervision order and no follow-up. Multiple social workers lied on the stand and they brought no evidence to back up their claims of abuse. I had audio and video records to prove it. It helps to have better evidence than the Ministry in court.
Talking to parents like those who have presented their stories online helped immensely to predict the actions and inaction's of the ministry. If your children have been wrongly removed, The Ministry can be beaten without an expensive lawyer.
It helps to have extraordinary patience, a thick skin, a tape recorder, perseverance, to not be afraid of the Ministry, and have absolute conviction that you will get your children back, and of course, knowledge that you did not abuse your children and the fact you know the Ministry knows this.
Anon @ July 22, 2010 11:00 PM:
ReplyDeleteI wish that people such as yourself would write a book or some kind of guide and make it available online for parents who have been targeted by MCFD. I think there are probably a lot of useless lawyers out there, so your guide would be very helpful. Could you set up a blog or something with info on how to beat these child stealers?
As for the poster who complains about anonymous posters - all a person would have to know about is the sickening and evil manner in which MCFD got revenge on the Baynes for going public - by ripping their children from them WHILE they were having a birthday party - all because the Baynes dared to go public. THAT'S why people are anonymous - because these bully thugs who pretend to protect children are actually intent on hunting down anyone, and their children, who dares criticize them.
Yes, anon 11:00 pm should write a book. Having some knowledge of this person and how they went about having their children returned, it is actually an honor to be associated with someone with such endurance and love for their children. Anon 11:00 pm worked diligently and intelligently and never gave up.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court of Canada just ruled - for the first time ever - that violation of Charter Rights is grounds for a damages award. And who is more violated than the Baynes, their children, and other families like them who have been so abused by the child protectors.
ReplyDelete