If Judge Crabtree eventually rules against the Baynes and does in fact grant to MCFD the Continuing Care Order for which it has applied, should the Baynes also then be arrested and charged with a criminal act? Wouldn't such a Crabtree ruling be tantamount to a guilty verdict? After all, the CCO application is pursued because MCFD considers the Baynes an ongoing risk to their children because they are suspected of having harmed a child.
I know what the easy legal answer is. The present case of MCFD versus Baynes is about the rights of three children to protection and security and not technically about the guilt or innocence of Paul and Zabeth Bayne with regard to physically harming one of the children.
I understand the import of the case and the distinction between these legal details. Yet logically, since the MCFD affidavit established that the entire CCO application is premised upon Dr. Colbourne's injuries assessment which she identified by the term 'shaken baby syndrome,' and by reason of which she or her medical colleagues notified MCFD and RCMP, doesn't the ruling to award the children to MCFD infer the guilt of one or both Bayne parents? And if it does, does it not make sense to hold them accountable by charging them with an offence?
Surely both parents did not gang up on the youngest of their three children and willfully hurt her. So one might say, we don't know which of the parents harmed the child and which one should be considered guilty of the suspected assault. Yes, but the non perpetrator parent is complicit in the crime by reason of silence, so both should be considered guilty by suspicion and receive the same penalty of childlessness. Equitable justice.
Ahh, but the cop-out argument can then be made that RCMP initially charged them with aggravated assault and investigated them and dismissed the charge for lack of evidence and that rather than pursuing that direction again, the Baynes can be made to pay through the removal of their children from them and the ending of their hopes for their family. That punishment will be accepted as a satisfactory payment. So, rather than charging them with an offence for which sufficient evidence must be garnered to support the charge, child protection services have been able to surmise violence and acquire enough suspicions to support the speculation. That is awkward to imagine but it is effectively a guilty verdict. It can be classified as guilty by inference rather than by evidence. That may not be on the books but it is the de facto feature of MCFD practice and interpretation of the mandate document called the Child, Family and Community Services Act.
After the first few weeks and definitely following the first few months that MCFD was involved with the Bayne children, MCFD justification for and management of the Bayne file became preposterous. This has been a
One commenter correctly suggests that 'incompetence' is not the appropriate word choice. Perhaps more suitable choices are malice, maliciousness, malevolence, spitefulness, venom, wrongful conduct, improperness, mismanagement, errors. I will substitute 'mismanagement' for 'incompetence.' Now I am thinking that 'comedy' is not apt either. I will substitute 'drama.'
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this! You put it so well.
ReplyDeleteVery well said, except I would not label MCFD's actions "incompetence." They are very competent, when it comes to their job, which is, quite obviously, to take as many children as possible.
ReplyDeleteParents and children are essentially being subjected to what amounts to the death penalty (albeit a long drawn out death), all on the flimsy burden of proof: balance of probabilities - which basically means that the judge can do whatever he wants.
We need to change the law, so at the very least, parents and children aren't subject to this flimsy burden of proof, and we need to change the way people think about "child abuse" and the rights of parents.
The problem is that people have been intensely indoctrinated for several decades now with the idea that the state should have the right to interfere, and that child abusers are lurking everywhere, especially behind the facade of parent.
What people really need to understand is that the biggest threat to them right now is government, because it is government that has the most power, and it is government that is most unaccountable. It is also government that can hide its deeds because government has the most money to engage in public relations campaigns and coverups. The media does essentially very little to expose the damage done by government, preferring instead to focus on individual such as the woman who faked cancer in order to get donations (look at the outrage that one individual/act has garnered, and - though reprehensible - is miniscule in terms of the damage done in comparison to, say, MCFD).
We need to be able to punish those who do harm. And just as Dr. Charles Smith was not incompetent, neither is MCFD incompetent. That term elides the real nature of their acts, which are malicious.
The concept of burden of proof is key. A parent is found guilty until proven innocent and starts serving their sentence immediately. There is also a lot of personal power the same as that of a judge on the shoulders of a social worker. They make the same choice a judge can make in taking a person's child, the sentence on that person effectively.
ReplyDeleteThe weaker case always belongs to the person on who the burden of proof falls to prove their point, that is always the parent and as they sentence is already being served, it is as hard as getting a wrongfully convicted person out of jail.
In jail, those who claim they are innocent such as David Milgaard so not fare well, since the system is set up to confess guilt and take programs to improve and learn to not do it again. What if the person is innocent and keeps stating that?? They can not ever pass through the system and the system is set up to not even entertain the idea of innocence.
CPS is exactly the same and it is worse as it punishes the child and the parent at the same time.
A parent fighting MCFD faces many obstacles. One is that the system encourages compliance and if a parent does not agree with the charges, they are considered in denial. SO the sentence is handed down by someone who just met the family and has a vested interest in the parent being guilty and who is allowed to twist facts which would never stand up in court. I am speaking from personal experience, by the was.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Ron. I think incompetence is a good choice of word. Anxiety and incompetence feed on each other. Incompetent people often do not Know why things keep going wrong for them and they are very dangerous people to have around the workplace. The higher placed they are, the more dangerous they can be, because the have more power. They scapegoat and blame others and are easily threatened by good staff. Not surprising that they finish up with poor staff. For good measure they also waste a lot of public money.
ReplyDeleteIncompetence breeds fear and people who are afraid can be malicious, vicious and all the other adjectives that were used.
That appalling display during the cross-examination of Zabeth Bayne was another manifestation of fear. When the judge said that it was not important for Doug to call Dr. Van Ee and he would accept his and every other written report as evidence, this put paid to the credibility of the ministry's medical testimony. They knew they were toast.
Cornered rats will bite and scratch and try to escape by swimming through sewers. The ministry's rep did all of these things in a desperate last ditch attempt to bully and trick Zabeth into incriminating herself. I could not see myself how this could be anything but self-defeating. Every decent human being in the courtroom was aghast at such tactics and I am fairly sure that we can count the judge among the decent human beings.
The judge might play it safe and downgrade the CCO to a short term supervision order to permit a transition of sorts. I get the feeling this is what MCFD is shooting for now, some transition process that they can label a supervision order, and declare that a finding of protection was found. They are sneaky bastards, and they are up to something.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe MCFD social workers do not care if parents are "guilty" or not. Although it certainly makes their life easier if parents are charged and possibly convicted.
MCFD does not even want to waste services on parents, delaying the onset of these services for as long as possible because they usually have a 1-year term. They also don't want to waist costly supervision time, as they need to fit in as many parents as possible with the limited facilities.
The point JUST seems to be to get kids into care any way possible, the moment a foster care slot opens up. I think MCFD calculates "lifetime value" of a child in care for planning purposes.
Parents are simply to be deflected, ignored, or aggravated. If parents do start making noise, then a Ministry psychologist will state parents and children need lengthy services. Simple.
The parents are not being tried for innocence or guilt. If MCFD fails with the RCMP, they they go with plan B or C (or D).
Social workers work off a script, tried and true. If parents become troublesome, their reactive response is simply escalated.
In the case of the Baynes is similar to "double jeopardy," being tried for the same thing twice. Except in the Baynes, the police did their job, quickly, and determined their was insufficient evidence, and no benefit to the public for filing criminal charges. Thank god for that!
Police can be canvassed with a Freedom of Information request to determine how many MCFD charge requests have been sent their way, and how many they have rejected.
Perhaps MCFD should take a look at MCFD's risk assessment, supervision reports and trial transcripts, and let's see if that changes their mind towards filing charges.
Police have to work with comparatively large numbers of the public, who they most certainly do not want to negatively impact. If police do not have the trust of the people they regularly work with, their job is much harder. Social workers simply don't seem to care. Strife equates to more time in care for children.
MCFD maximizes pain on very low numbers of parents that ideally, once they have been fully drained, they are discarded and never dealt with again. On to new victims.
If I were the police, hearing through the media that some third rate social worker disguising themselves as child protection investigators are implying the police are wrong in not filing charges, I would secretly want to find something to charge them, perhaps fraud, malice, libel -- take your pick.
Most police, after all, have at least one child abuse specialist or school liaison that are considerably more qualified that MCFD people. It often takes months to nab an online child molester, for example.
Is MCFD saying their investigators and process are better than the RCMP, or is it MCFD has a lower threshold of proof they get to take advantage and keep the kids as a "precaution"?
Remember, the the Baynes they didn't start out with a CCO, which requires, supposedly, a higher threshold of evidence. That wasn't produced until the beginning of 2009, more than a full year after the removal.
It would appear the Ministry trick is to get in under the wire with an initial precautionary concern, then silently elevate the seriousness of the matter by applying for a CCO, regardless of the lack of or low quality of evidence.
The RCMP had exactly the same information as MCFD shortly after the removal, did they not? Plus, Police would additionally have known the Hoffman's failed attempted at filing a restraining order.
These are my collection of random thoughts for the day.
INCOMPETENCE:
ReplyDeleteThe lack of ability, knowledge, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge a required duty or professional obligation.
The term incompetency has several meanings in the law. When it is used to describe the mental condition of a person subject to legal proceedings, it means the person is neither able to comprehend the nature and consequences of the proceedings nor adequately able to help an attorney with his defense. When it is used to describe the legal qualification of a person, it means the person does not have the legal capacity to enter a contract. When it is employed to describe a professional duty or obligation, it means that the person has demonstrated a lack of ability to perform professional functions.
=================
MALICE:
The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance.
In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse. It does not necessarily imply personal hatred or ill feelings, but rather, it focuses on the mental state that is in reckless disregard of the law in general and of the legal rights of others. An example of a malicious act would be committing the tort of slander by labeling a nondrinker an alcoholic in front of his or her employees.
=============
MCFD employees may be incompetent, IF you buy into the propaganda that their job is to protect children. However, it is more accurate to describe them as malicious, and describing them as malicious also makes them more accountable. If we don't want them to be as accountable, then we can always say that they are merely incompetent. The former doctor, Charles Smith, was happy for people to believe his story that he was incompetent, because what he did was of a far less serious nature than if it had been done in malice. However, when you examine the facts in Charles Smith's case, it is clear that he too acted with malice.
This is a very important issue - distinguishing between incompetence and malice - because of course if such great damage is done merely because of incompetence, then the consequences will be much less serious. Anyone who describes what MCFD does as "incompetence" perhaps does not really understand the true nature, or wants to cover up the true nature, of MCFD. I don't believe that Ron wants to do this, I think that we have just become used to terming malice "incompetence."
Many CP SW are incompetent in doing what they are paid & supposed to do, ie. helping families in need. But most of them are very competent in using children to blackmail their parents to do whatever they see fit, including admitting guilt in court.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very difficult for Judge Crabtree to do anything different from an outright return of the children. There is no evidence to support a CCO. Jensen told them this case could not succeed two years ago. It would be inconceivable for the judge to make a care or supervision order at this stage, because the act only allows one year maximum and they have already had three. All the other guidelines of the act have already been shattered. Regarding competence. you can quibble on semantics all you like. A British inquiry labelled a local child welfare authority as "not fit for purpose". Perhaps you would prefer that. I would say blundering idiots, but Ron might think it offensive.
ReplyDeleteRon, am I the only person who reads/comments on this web page whether one is pro-MCFD or anti-MCFD to think NONE of us are in a position to claim another to be incompetent without first acknowledging our very own incompetence?
ReplyDeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteRE: INCOMPETENCE v. MALICE
I am not trying to quibble, or raise arguments or objections about a trivial matter, when I state that there should be a distinction drawn between incompetence and malice. I just want MCFD employees to be held accountable. Claiming that they are/were incompetent means that they will be less accountable.
When you look at all the harm that MCFD and all their employees do, and exactly how they do it, it becomes clear that there is a design. It isn't just incompetence, though no doubt there is incompetence. It is more than incompetence. When you repeatedly hear about and see for yourself everything from smirks of delight from social workers who have just caused parents immense pain, to all Finn Jensen's dirty tricks, you cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is malice, not incompetence.
This is not quibbling; to quibble is to argue over trivial matters, and there is nothing trivial about insisting on justice for parents and children who have been harmed by MCFD.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is malice. To do so aids injustice.
Anon 9:34 PM please explain further your last comment. I am assuming that your comment was directed at me since I initially used the word 'incompetence,' in relationship to MCFD not a specific individual. If I were doing an honest autobiographical piece, then you correctly point out that I would have to admit personal failings and incompetencies. Since my prose are focused upon MCFD and my conviction that some glaring errors of judgement have been made by MCFD in the Bayne case, I have not alluded to my own issues.
ReplyDeleteMalice is definitely preferable term to incompetent.
ReplyDeleteI too agree with the previous poster the average social worker is not, by any means incompetent. By appearing to be an idiot, they attempt to goad parents into calling them that, or worse.
Incompetence would be something the college of social workers would be qualified to determine.
Malfeasance and Misfeasance are also applicable.
MALFEASANCE: wrongful conduct by a public official
MISFEASANCE: Improper and unlawful execution of an act that in itself is lawful and proper.
In canlii.org, Keene v. MCFD 2003 BCSC 1544 has a blurb about Malice.
"The individual defendants and each of them acted with malice in that they intended to harm the plaintiffs by their abuse of their statutory powers or were reckless in that they had a conscious disregard for the interests of the plaintiffs.”
The trick here is to establish what harm you as a parent sufferred. Go to a psychiatrist for example and get an assessment of PTSD (post traumatic stress syndrom). The parenting counsellor repeated to me quite a few times that parents who have their children removed are quite an emotional wreck as a result. This was made with the expectation that I was also supposed to be demonstrating this trauma. It is intentionally inflicted.
Ron, you should write post "abused by suspicion" or "Abused by protection" tell the children side of the story
ReplyDeleteIf MCFD actions are determined to be incompetent versus malicious, this really lets them off the hook. There will be no accountability until we see, and a judge sees, MCFD actions for what they are. Count on it, that MCFD desperately (just like Charles Smith) desperately wants us to see what they have done - if they ever are held at all accountable - to be merely incompetence. They will have a much, much higher price to pay if their deeds are deemed malicious.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the comment at 9:34 goes
("Ron, am I the only person who reads/comments on this web page whether one is pro-MCFD or anti-MCFD to think NONE of us are in a position to claim another to be incompetent without first acknowledging our very own incompetence?")
What on earth does this mean? Does this mean that we can watch Finn Jensen move in on Zabeth Bayne on the stand like a panther moving in on his prey, springing upon her with the accusation that she is "pregnant!," and - before we make any comments about this frightening display of the abuse of state power - fess up to the fact we might be incompetent? If so, I'll gladly do that, if that would in fact make a difference!
So, here goes with my confession of incompetence:
Ysterday, while carrying out my duties, I bungled, and my mistake cost $45.00, maybe $100.00 if we really want to stretch. But guess what? No children were ripped from their parents for the rest of their lives, because of my incompetence. No children will grow up without their sisters and brothers, because of my incompetence. No grandparents will be forever deprived of all the moments of sweet happiness that a grandchild brings, because of my incompetence. No child will be abused, or depressed, or suicidal, or drugged in foster housing, or end up in prison, or dead, because of my incompetence. No society, and justice system, will be torn asunder, because of my incompetence.
By the way, are you sure you aren't posting anymore CW, cause that comment at 9:34 sure sounds a lot like you?
But that could just be my incompetence surfacing again.
To Anon 11:38 AM
ReplyDeleteYou asked me what Anon 9:34 meant by ("Ron, am I the only person who reads/comments on this web page whether one is pro-MCFD or anti-MCFD to think NONE of us are in a position to claim another to be incompetent without first acknowledging our very own incompetence?") and I tried to interpret it but truly don't have a clue. You have pointed out your own struggle with the confusing logic that is implied. And you suggested that the sound of the question posed to me had the tone of a defensive SW. I don't know.
Hi Ron - Anon 9:34 - the statement is exactly what it was and not directed at anyone in particular. I'd think, from a former pastor such as yourself, that recognizing our own incompetence before pointing out that of others would be an obvious thing for you.
ReplyDeleteThose who cast stones and all that...
OK Anon 9:34. Stay in touch.
ReplyDeleteFor Beka, actions taken as requested.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 7:10:
ReplyDeleteI think it's safe to say that nothing Ron ever did resulted in such heartache as has been experienced by the Baynes and countless other families in BC.
So, Anon 7:10, your suggestion that Ron has to fess up to all his incompetence before he dare criticize or discuss MCFD is just ridiculous, and yet another example of how MCFD employees (are you an employee, or service provider, Anon 7:10?) twist things and try to put people on the defensive, in an effort to suppress the truth.
Keep posting though, as it is very enlightening to those who are unaware of how MCFD, and its apologists, operate.
Yes, I was taken to court for a very flimsy reason. Then it was a strange time when things I did that were not violations at all were written down as violations. MCFD has been so untruthful on my written file, that I think they should be investigated. It is defamation in any other legal sense if you do that to someone, what MCFD has done to me and to others.
ReplyDeleteI was in a very successful mediation and after we all agreed and signed the document, an 'emergency' call came for the director. He left and when he returned and everyone was relaxed and had forgotten we were still there, the story of the 'emergency' unfolded. Parents who were to not leave the province were caught going from B.C. on a plane to Quebec. They were stopped and their children were taken at the airport. There was much joy among the social workers in the room about this. I was trying to figure them out as people. They seemed nice enough and like human beings, then all this happiness at taking someone's kids????
ReplyDeleteTHe next example of malice was that I mistakenly received some inner e-mails with my file. THe day that I lost my children was the saddest day of my life and then I read this parallel world of the e-mails that demanded it. THere was joy and victory about it from the SWs. It was called a 'busy day on my file'.
It is just like a gang of robbers who steal and then return to their lair to celebrate. When you, the law abiding citizen finds all that you value has been taken, you cry and cry. But they laugh and laugh. And they are the 'law' and we, honest, sincere, law abiding parents are treated like the criminal.
I have tried to understand it, and I think that some do honestly believe they are doing good, and some SWs are good and in a bad system and some are completely evil. Some offices go evil and some are better and mostly trying for the side of the good. IT is quite different from region to region. I have been involved in more than one office, so I can see the difference from place to place. Saanich is terrible as is Victoria. I believe Victoria is the worst place in B.C. for CPS.
Malice and evil are inextricable. Anyone who wants to call MCFD and child protection employees "incompetent" need to see a few of these social workers smirking as they rip out parents' hearts.
ReplyDelete