The Websters spent years seeking to disprove abuse claims. The Websters were a Norfolk couple whom social services claimed abused their three children in 2003. The police looked into the case and dropped all charges against Nicky and Mark. Specifically social services claimed that the couple abused one toddler by violently twisting him, causing multiple fractures. That put the other two children at risk as well. Their three children were swiftly taken and processed and adopted out, two of them to one family and the third to another family. In the UK adoptions are non reversible. Websters argued that a genetic bone defect accounted for their child’s injuries. In 2006 Nicola was pregnant with a fourth child and fearing that this child too might be taken from them, they fled from Britain to Ireland so Brandon could be born there. It became an international story in 2006. Irish authorities however ordered that Brandon be kept in hospital so the Websters agreed to return to UK. They were under round the clock supervision in an assessment centre for six months. They worried that the slightest mark on Brandon could result in this child being removed as well. At last they were allowed to take their baby son home but they had to engage in a legal battle to keep custody. Only a year later was a final decision made that they could keep their youngest child. During the first four years by court order their identities were concealed in the media by the use of a fictitious surname. Then in 2007 BBC won a landmark judgement to allow the Webster’s names and faces and evidence to be reported. Children’s services spokesperson tried to shift responsibility for this distasteful scenario by saying that it was actually the judge who made the decision regarding adoption.
a SERIES OF NEWS LINKS from recent to past
The couple who lost three children to social services launch historic court fight to win them back – by Laura Collins June 20, 2010
Family court hearings open to the media for the first time, June 21, 2010
We're classed as child abusers' - Facebook Page, Monday, 16 February 2009'
We’re classed as child abusers - BBC News Monday, 16 February 2009
Monday, 16 February 2009 The ethics of keeping a child from its parents
Monday, 2 July 2007 17:07 UK Missing children By John Sweeney
Friday, 3 November 2006 Couple allowed to take baby home
Parents battle for child custody, 8 November 2006, 17:18 GMT
Tuesday, 16 May 2006, 13:49 GMT 14:49 UK Please don’t take my baby
One would think there would be more example like this closer to home, but they are difficult to find. Perhaps because lower courts are involved and not all judgements are published?
ReplyDeleteDespite BC having open courts, If all judgments are not published and available for examination and comparison to other cases, they might as well be secret.
More local examples are needed. We know they must exist, so where are they?
I can't find any CFCSA cases for Finn Jensen in the provincial court database. Why? How many CCO's has he failed and suceeded at? What is Judge Crabtree's CFCSA record?
Britain has a scary child protection track record, and BC strives to follow in their footsteps. Cameras in home of children to monitor they are "protected" is one example of throwing out parent's rights by putting a child's safety first is the universal argument.
So if the state takes all the children from a family is the same as sterilizing them, is it not?
ReplyDeleteThis is where the remove-one-remove-all argument ultimately takes us.
It is easy to test this argument by parents simply conceiving during litigation, or filing a freedom of information act to see how often, and how consistently this premise is employed.
Ever wonder why ALL speeders are not ticketed, just some? Because radar cameras were outlawed. They brought too much money into the system and it was clear it was just a cash cow.
Child removal in combination with the hack-eyed and unaccountable legal process legal process is absolutely unconstitutional.
This is state sponsored kidnapping, funded by your tax dollars. It is occuring with alarming frequency. This is how governments (and in some cases, private institutions) make money now, by viciously ripping children from all whom they love, and then sending them to "care," where they will be anything but cared for. Children in "care," are at a much, much higher risk of being drugged, beaten, raped, and murdered. If they manage to make it through "care," the stand a good chance of committing suicide or ending up on the street or in prison. As far as "future risk" of harm goes, the risk is FAR greater - and this has been proven statistically - the risk is FAR GREATER - if the children are taken from their parents and put into "care." The vast majority of judges conveniently ignore this truth, however.
ReplyDeleteAll those who care about their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, or just democracy and human rights, should be shocked into action. Please support the Baynes and all lawyers (such as Doug Christie) who are bravely fighting corrupt child protective services.
Thanks Ron for some great summaries.
ReplyDeleteA WEEK OF DIRTY TRICKS.
We just saw a week of dirty tricks. We can all see the tricks, but to understand why they were played, remember the background. A doctor said that the Baynes deliberately injured their child. The Baynes said nonsense and produced numerous medical experts who contradicted the doctor. The director did not know what to do.He sat on the fence for so long that eventually he could not back out without looking bad. One reason why he dithered is because his boss has put a lot of money into promoting the SBS hypothesis. She would send a memo saying "We are not amused." So the priority became in winning the case at all costs. Child welfare became irrelevant. Their lawyer told them the case could not succeed with proper defence. No problem. There is no way the Baynes can afford a proper defence and we will make absolutely certain of that by prolonging the trial. ( Sorry I should say the hearing.) But then horror of horrors. A knight rides to the rescue, none other than Sir Lancelot Christie. Terror strikes the heart of the evil Sir Mordred. He seizes his trusty shield of secrecy and stonewalling. He takes his lance of deception and distortion and prepares for the fray, but deep in his cold heart he is afraid.
Last May when Judge Crabtree set the dates for the August hearing, he made it clear that it was in the best interests of the children and the family that the hearing should definitely conclude by August 13. At the beginning of the week he reiterated that he wanted a Friday conclusion to be expedited and a time plan was discussed. Mon-last ministry witness-a doctor. Tue-defense witness-Dr.Barnes. Wed defense-Dr.Van Ee-biomechanical expert. Thurs AM Zabeth Bayne. Thurs PM Zabeth Cross-examination. Fri Am -Jensen closing arguments. Fri PM Christie closing arguments. As Christie only asked for one hour, this gave the rest of the day to Jensen.
Note, this case has become much more than a protecion determination, but it has developed into a trial of the ministry and of the whole shaken baby syndrome hypothesis. The director is desperate to win it and in dread of losing it.
It became obvious from the first day that Jensen was going to make sure that the hearing would be delayed once again and that he would try to make sure that it could be blamed on the defence. Monday went off okay. The doctor testified and Christie cross-examined on Schedule. Tuesday Dr.Barnes only took half a day by videolink, so Christie saved time by having Zabeth start her testimony. On Tuesday Jensen put a wrench in the works. He objected to Dr.Van Ee testifying the next day by videolink on the grounds that the defense had failed to provide the director with a copy of Dr.Van Ee's written report and thus he had been put at a disadvantage. Christie had to cancel the morning testimony, while they searched the records for the truth of this statement By the time Judge Crabtree told Jensen that he was mistaken at the Wed pm hearing and that the report was in the package filed with court,it was too late. Van Ee could not be called. The false claim had done its damage. Now Christie would have to find a new court day to submit this testimony.
Doug Christie put the cancelled time to good use by having Zabeth conclude her testimony and leaving a whole day for Jensen to cross-examine. Christie decided to forgo the Van.Ee testimony in order to make the priority a Friday finish. Jensen was foiled again, but he still had a trick or two up his sleeve. He took all day on Thursday with the most appallingly offensive cross-examinaition and said he would need another 90minutes on Friday. Blatant sabotage. He knew that Christie would have to recall Zabeth for re-examination and that would run out the clock. For good measure he extended the cross-examination until noon.
Continued today
A WEEK OF DIRTY TRICKS (continued.)
ReplyDeleteJensen's sabotage would have succeeded had he not under-estimated his adversary. Doug scotched him by not recalling Zabeth. Instead he told the court that he was ready to make his final submission and he would need an hour. The protocol is that the prosecution goes first and Jensen had to admit that he was not ready to make a submission. He claimed to need half a day and he had made certain that there would not be enough time. He never had any intention of being ready by Friday. Now he was saying that he needed another hearinig date and he might need a whole day. By this time the dirty tricks must have been obvious to everyone.
Once more Doug Christie had the answer. In order to comply with the judge's desire to expedite a Friday conclusion, he would waive protocol and go first. He made the very able presentation that Ron has so well summarised.
Usually the prosecution goes first and then the defence. Then that is the last go for both sides. Finis. The one with the last word has an advantage, because they know what the other side said and can do some rebuttal, or damage control. So Doug gave this last word advantage to his opponent. However, Judge Crabtree levelled the playing field by ordering Jensen to provide Christie with a trancript and restoring to him the last word advantage by granting him the right to another submission. Jensen tried to make Christie the goat for the delays, but now he became the goat.
How much damage has been done by the delays? Let us assume that both sides had concluded on Friday. Even if the judge had a mind to return the children, or even to order unsupervised interim access, he would take a great risk by so doing. He would take time to give written reasons before delivering his judgement. Otherwise he would give grounds for appeal. Let us say for the sake of argument that the evidence has already convinced the judge that no case for a CCO exists. His only fear is that he must make sure his judgement is appeal proof. That would explain why he seems to give the prosecution so much rope. Judges too have limits on their powers. Their power only kicks in after due process is concluded. A previous ministry non accidental injury case was overturned on appeal and a new hearing ordered, because the judge did not give adequate written coverage to explain why certain evidence was not considered.
The ministry is perfectly aware that they are losing this case and now the priority becomes damage control. Jensen sabotaged a Friday conclusion, in order to allow the ministry brass time to consult with their legal experts and devise a strategy for damage control when the adverse judgement comes out. So the effect of the delay is marginal. If Crabtree can find a september date, it delays a three year case by one month. It all depends how long it will take him to make a written judgement. The best hope for Friday was to conclude arguments and sit tight and await the written ruling. This might delay things a few more weeks.
Who comes out ahead? Mainly Finn Jensen.He advised them all along that they could not win and he has already made a ton of money. By setting another date, he makes even more. If he had finished on Friday he would make no more money. By setting another hearing, he can get paid another full court day at $400 an hour and he can probably bill much more for preparation. How much more will he make? $2500? $3,000? $5000? You can ask, but you will not get an answer.
Excellent assessment, Ray.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the additional thousands of dollars taxpayers needlessly continue to pay to the foster parenting and ongoing supervision.
The ministry always stalls. They are already giving the parents the jail sentence as they have the kids, so they have no reason to end that quickly.
ReplyDeleteIf a child can be taken from their REAL parents on the basis of the risk of future harm, why isn't the risk of future harm they will experience in foster "care" taken into account.
ReplyDeleteThese judges who so blithely take away people's children, and destroy families, need to be held accountable. They are a big part of the problem. If you read the court cases, you see how they, so very often, just take children from their parents. They don't care, they just pretend to. They can always rip children from their parents, and claim it's in "the best interests of the child." They do what they want, because no one is complaining. Judges are not impartial.
Someone should interview the children of these judges who have taken away tens of thousands of children. Someone should interview the children of these judges, and see if the children (now adults) EVER had any broken bones, illnesses, "signs of neglect" or "depression" or any of the other excuses that MCFD uses to take away children. Someone should also interview these adults (children of judges) and see if any of those judges ever abused prescription drugs or alchohol. Seems how substance abuse is very, very common amongst lawyers, and seems how all judges were once lawyers, what do you want to bet that some of these kids had fathers/mothers (the Judges) who were substance abusers. Do you think any of these judges EVER got their children "removed?"
ReplyDeleteThe taking of new borns from parents occurs frequently in NYC courts BUT there is now case law to preclude this. Case law may only be effective if said attorneys know of same and are willing to fight for parents.
ReplyDeleteIt is a terrible thing. There have been cases in the States wherein multiple children have been taken at birth from parents.
It is as if these parents have become breeders for the Child Protection organizations. And, yes, in the States, almost every single child sent to foster care is determined to be of "special" needs. Why?
More federal funding.
The US and Canada, the UK and Australia, it is all the same.
All these countries work off of the same model.
The people have risen up to stand by the Baynes.
If we, a people, can help one family, let it be the Baynes.
The Talmud says, "To save a single life is like saving an entire world".
Reader from NYC
COMMENTS ABOUT FOSTER PARENTS
ReplyDeleteSome of you who have commented today may be looking for your comment. If it was a rant or harangue about foster parents, it is not being published. I am not going there. This blog does not need that kind of diversion.
I'm glad Ray Ferris is calling a spade a spade.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of commentary is absolutely needed on individuals who are being paid with tax dollars. When all is said and done, I want to know exactly how much the Attorney General paid on legal fees on this project.
We can clearly see the benefits of court proceedings happening in full view of the public and what really happens in the hearing room reported to those who cannot attend.
I had no idea the shenanigans Finn was up to, and I attended only Friday. I was expecting everything to be over that day. I'm sure Finn is a hero to MCFD, but to parents, an unprincipled man like this is death.
This is real life folks. THIS is the sort of thing that happens in courts day in and day out, and this goes on all the way up to the BC Court of Appeal. If you have a really big name lawyer, and publicity is evident, you might get more respect. There was no press that I could see.
Those lawyers with experience on the losing end of the stick have to play these games in order to try to get an advantage. It has nothing to do with law. The problem is they get away with it, the judge stays silent. I have seen some Supreme court judges lay down the law of correct procedures and common sense, but more often than not, this does not happen.
The only thing that can be done is that parents in the future be able to look up Finn Jensen's name and find it in this blog and watch and prepare for the sort of tricks that will be pulled. If there is to be any safeguards for parents in the future who might encounter the net of "protection" oriented doctors, hopefully they will search the names of the doctors and be forwarned more quickly.
Parents, if you bring your children into the hospital with bruises, bone breaks and other injuries, take lots of photos, videos of your child saying how he got the injury, hidden-tape-record all doctor appointments, immediately request and keep copies of all reports.
Ask questions immediately about concerns you heard the hospital reports all bumps and scrapes to child protection. As a precaution, immediately file a freedom of information request to MCFD for any reports that may exist on you, and the Health Ministry for health and billing history to track any tests that may have been conducted without your knowledge and billed to your or your child's medical numbers.
Fortunately, it would appear that Doug Christie has sufficient street fighting skills in the legal arena to counter these nasty tricks quickly.
Let's hope the judge is not part of, or being somehow pressured by this sham that is the child protection legal process.
I understand that in may states they recover foster care costs in part from the parents. Removing children without reason could be dealt with by deterring such parents from having children by billing them for children in care, with the idea if they have more children, they would automatically be removed and they would have to pay to support them.
ReplyDeleteThe parents would not have to be convicted of anything, of course. Just the opinion of child protection officials would be sufficient to remove their children and extract funds from the parents. If parents ran, or didn't pay, the government would confiscate their driver's licence, seize their passport to prevent them from leaving the country, go after their property and other assets. This process is already in place for parents who do not pay child support.
Former (now deceased) Senator Nancy Sheafer noted that 40 billion dollars in transfer funds in the U.S. was attributed to child protection efforts.
This is a wealth transference mechanism that takes money from the natural parents and taxpayers and gives it to foster parents, and the government skims off the top for "operational" costs.
That is quite a bit of motivation on a national scale for any country to remove children regardless of reason, and for the smallest of reasons. Social workers are treated like a goose that lays the golden egg. Social workers have the skills to convince parents they are abusers and children that they have been abused.
In a small country like Canada, the child protection budget for JUST B.C. is 1.3 billion. Several other ministries also have their hand in the cookie jar. Multiply by 20, or 40 and you have an idea of the scope of the problem.
The outcome of the Baynes case should theoretically spread far beyond the specific concerns of SBS or saving an embedded doctor or two, to generalized concerns about child protection methodologies and legalities.
This sort of problem has to be dealt with case by case in the same manner as the Baynes before people will wake up and realize the scope of the problem.
Unfortunately, there are few Doug Christie's in the world to fight for parents.
MCFD is not a gracious loser. They have pretty much lost the case with me. I am the one with the 2000 pages against me. It started with a friendship that went sour. It was a person who considered herself to be helpful to me and was actually imposing badly on my family. She wanted to be a consultant to fix me up. But I had been a mom for many years already before I met her, so I did not really need the advice. I quit being friends with her. SO she took to calling MCFD on me even if I was out of town. I had my address in the system so she was able to call in all these lies and fix it to my address (as opposed to the difficulty of calling MCFD on someone you see on the bus, or in public).
ReplyDeleteMCFD must be desperate for work since all the unproven calls were called 'intakes'. I had no idea I had so much 'involvement'.
I proved my case and now I will get my kids back. BUt they are making it not an unconditional return. It is a very grudging giving back and I will be receiving them under a supervision order. At least it is 3 months instead of 6.
Then as I could see that they lost, and they could see it too, I thought they would be humbled. But, no they wanted to allude to dangers to my children upon return; they heard my son mention someone in his sleep who they think may have scared him. He does not know anyone under that name. None of us do. But it is written down that this person is a potential menace when he is returned to his family.
Imagine, a person states a name in their sleep and it is considered valid 'evidence'???? And he was not in my care for some time when he stated this name, it could be a fear of someone he met while being in care.
It is a very oddly set up system with lots of hearsay and people with no psychological training allowed to make wild hypothesis. It really is that strange of a system that we call child protection.
It is quite remarkable the reasons individual social workers will spout off to justify their actions
ReplyDeleteThe best you can do is save up the nonsense MCFD spouts and use it in a trial setting and make them look like fools.
The good thing to know is when this is the sort of reason you hear form them, this means they have nothing better.
Affected parents need to compare notes for the benefits of others yet to be affected.
The judges need to be clued in to the way MCFD operates.
ReplyDelete