They had no other option but to go public now. This is the private and confidential information extracted under cross examination to which I discreetly referred in the last two posts. Someone with that private information, that secret, disclosed it mistakenly or intentionally. This is the news to which Finn Jensen became privy and used during his cross examination. He led Zabeth through a series of easily affirmed statements that approximated this, “You will agree that your two youngest children have many challenges? Boy B is developmentally behind and will require numerous therapies to assist him?” To these Zabeth responded by reciting a list of needs of which she is fully cognizant. Then he mentioned BabyGirl B and her deficit in movement and speech and Zabeth again responded with knowing affirmations. Jensen asked her whether she could sincerely believe that if the children were returned, Paul and Zabeth could look after them and meet all these needs. Then he asked her whether she would try to expand her family. When I heard that I knew exactly where he was going. She responded, “When Paul and I were married it was our intention to have a large family. We love children and we love our children and we want to nurture them.” Then with soft voice almost audible only to Zabeth to whom he was near, Jensen asked “Are you pregnant now?” She strongly and emotionally replied “Yes.” He whispered “how far along are you?” She said “two months,” and dissolved in tears. The room gasped. THE NEWS WAS OUT. The room gasped not because of the news but the insidious manner in which the news was broken. Christie strongly objected to this invasion of privacy.
Well Jensen's tactic was to infer that they cannot possibly look after three children when they have another one coming along. THAT IS NOT EVEN WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ABOUT. This is about whether either parent harmed their only daughter. They did not. This is about MCFD's failure to provide evidence for Jensen. The Baynes would be caring for their children if they had not been removed. They were diligently caring for the children before the removal. They would have made the adjustments that all good parents make when another child comes along. This case is not about whether they can care. It is about a Ministry taking three children, two of them certainly without cause, and the other for reason of suspicion minus evidence and therefore with no substantive reason for which to be granted continuing care.
Shortly after this, in what seemed like a dramatic moment, Christie announced to the Judge that he was ready to make his final submission. He and the Baynes wanted this done. This was absolutely enough. As far as Christie was concerned, the MCFD had proved nothing by what he called innuendo and smear and grossly distorted risk assessment statements and then this unnecessary, insidious attack upon an expectant mother, knowing she was pregnant and putting the baby at risk because she could lose the baby.
Christie said that MCFD and Jensen have suggested that the Baynes are without strength and are isolated. Bayne supporters filled one entire side of the room and surrounded the MCFD employees on the other. Then Christie turned around to look at the supporters and asked the Judge (paraphrased), “Does this look like they are isolated?" He continued. "It is suggested that the Baynes do not have the necessary network of assistance to care for their children. How many of these people will do all that they can to help Paul and Zabeth care for their children?" A room of supporters stood to their feet in an emotional demonstration of solidarity.
Be sure to read the previous two posts which retell other aspects of the closing of the court case.
What an oppression under the pretext of "child protection"! If MCFD gets the CCO, it is likely that the Bayne's 4th child will be seized at birth. This happens many times before. The only way to prevent this is for the Baynes to leave this "free and democratic" country until their new born is 19 years old.
ReplyDeleteMCFD "helps" parents who CP SW perceived as lacking the ability to care for their children by removing them. Is this what "child protection" all about?
At this point, there are sufficient evidence to call for revoking general child removal authority per CFCSA. This power is oppressive, barbaric, perverted by special interests and fails to serve its intended purpose. It is an insult to humanity. After all, this will not compromise real child protection as there are other laws that give authorities power to separate abusive parents and vulnerable children. Special interests want to preserve this power for their private interests. You see how vigorously they fight back in this cyber space.
MCFD creates hundred of cases similar to this every year. How many Doug Christie and Ron Unruh are needed to help these oppressed parents? Repealing CFCSA is the only solution, not training, hiring good service providers or reforming MCFD from within. Any measures less than this will not solve the problem.
PS: Be mindful that MCFD has the power to access medical records at will. They may get Zabeth's pregnancy information through this avenue. Privacy is the last thing MCFD concerns despite that they often cite protecting privacy to avoid answering questions.
I have four kids and I'm a single parent, it is a choice for people who like kids. MCFD placed Bethany with a single caregiver with more than 4 kids in the house and a nanny was supplied as well as thousands of dollars of foster payments.
ReplyDeleteFinn no longer appears to be shooting for a CCO. If they suceeded, they would HAVE to remove the infant even if there was no cause. This would cause further public uproar. No, MCFD cannot afford to win a CCO now. The best they can do now is insinuate themselves into the Baynes lives and continue to be the go-between for services.
When you love your kids, you do anything for them, if they have needs (in my case, soccer, school, playdates etc.) this is not a burden, it is a choice of what
you want to do with you day. Everyone has the same 24 hours in a day.
I gathered from the line of questioning that all led to the extraction of the answer to the question already known. What Finn was really selling was the idea MCFD should still be involved in administering those services and perhaps provide respite care as part of the judgment. This way they could still keep the file open and continue receiving budgetary allocation for four kids.
This would also likely eliminate a threat of a lawsuit and also leave MCFD with a "let bygones be bygones" exit strategy that would mute the perception they are monsters.
I say, based on the evidence and credibility that is hugely in the favour of the Baynes, give the kids back with no strings, and let the parents do their job without MCFD's "help."
The ability to go through medical records and obtain information from a third party without having permission, THEN reveal it publicly, is a huge concern for the public generally. I was hoping Christie would have asked how Finn came across this information, as implies something far more sinister than just the concerns of this case.
Reprehensible does not begin to describe this tactic.
What I find very interesting in these Questions to her would be that if they were for some reason unable ,Why as a Agency that is supposed to help Families in Crisis, the Support needed to get through a hard time and make all reasonable efforts to keep Family Together?
ReplyDeleteI had a similar Questioned posed to Me similar to Zabeth using similar tactics,that Lawyer should have official complaints to the law society by everyone present!
They (MCFD) have another Agenda underneath thier veneer! Thier true agenda is to break apart anything good and put it back together using all they services prescribe !
The MFCD should lose the ability to remove Children and it should be put before a Independant Board made up of local Persons from various walks of Life just like a jury that both sides can appeal to!
For the last 25 years or more these social workers have been like a wrecking ball out of control,crashing into lives in a wreckless manner !
Is it not the law that evidence in the posession of one side be disclosed FIRST to the other side to permit adequate time to respond?
ReplyDeleteI would want to know HOW, WHEN, from WHO or WHERE this information originated.
Obviously having one's lives put on hold for 3 years while Zabeth's biological time clock advances increases the danger of having more children safely. What right, and what purpose is served by Finn forcing Zabeth to prematurely publicize this information?
This is simply an invasion of privacy and an example of unreasonable search and seizure of information without benefit of a warrant.
If I were Zabeth, I would ask who asked to view her medical records and ask police to investigate.
The children are not under the Baynes control therefore going into recent medical records was just a dig to see for conditions associated with stress that they are causing so it can be used against them in court!
ReplyDeleteI think this is Ileagal and someone should answer?
To Anon 8:26 am
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not required in law that evidence must be disclosed before it can be used against a party. Not in this type of kangaroo family court anyway.
Another possible way to get Zabeth's pregnancy info is monitoring her calls and emails.
Paul and Zabeth could not handle the needs of their children, Bethany was injured, either by parents or by being put in a vulnerable situation by being placed on the floor and now they have another on the way.... more irresponsible parenting! This family needs ALOT of help. I hope for the kids sake they get it!! 3 special needs children and the risk of another preemie baby which will require special attention. I hope all the Bayne followers are ready to step in and help, they are going to need it.
ReplyDeleteWell Anon 3:00 PM
ReplyDeleteYou knew your comment would evoke a response. I thought I would beat the rush.
It is precisely your kind of salacious statement that damns people without evidence.
Paul and Zabeth were effectively looking after their two sons, despite the severe prematurity of Baden. They rose to the challenge of his needs. Along came Bethany. They were meeting her needs and enjoying her until the injury occurrence. They explained that. No evidence of non accidental injury was presented in court because it can only be an assumption, an opinion. I am confident that they will be able with the help of their family and friends, to attend a family of four children.
I truly hope they can meet their childrens needs, the potential to have FOUR special needs children in their care is very possible. Thats alot for any family.
ReplyDeleteFor the best of people I agree, this is a significant challenge. Even when it is difficult, not for a moment do I think that removal by the government of one child or several is the solution.
ReplyDeletePS, Anon 3PM and 3:52PM
ReplyDeleteI have this impression that you know more about one or more of these children than most people do, so without saying more, I believe I can understand why you desire that these children's needs will be adequately met. I believe you have spoken sincerely.
Who says the fourth child will have "special" needs?
ReplyDeleteMy brother and his wife have 10 children (yes, 10). We are Catholics. My brother worked to support his children. No welfare, no services other than my brother's Veteran Administration benefits as he was US Navy.
The children are grown now with children of their own. They each and every one of them make their own way.
How dare anyone judge these parents, the Baynes, and their family?
Reader from NYC
That shows how they take the children and they make the most ridiculous statements. I have my children taken because of the idea that there is 'potential neglect'. Any child can be taken from any parent and anyone can be found to speak to bolster the case,even if they like the parent, if MCFD can write down untrue, unchallenged statements, they can keep the kids. It is a very bad system. DOn't try to defend it for a minute. It is terrible when police violently take children. It gives kids stress and trauma that lasts a long, long time. Stop supporting this, now.
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing to read an MCFD supporter commenting on the services the children need, insinuating the natural parents of the children are somehow no longer quite up to the task of caring for their own children when no prior or future difficulties were revealed in court.
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I’m wrong, but what, exactly better qualifies the current single foster mom, a former foster child herself to care for these three kids as opposed to their natural parents?
No derogatory information was brought forward that detracted from the Baynes parenting abilities.
None of the supervision reports over a 2-1/2 year period show any problems. (Mr. Christie left that out of his summation.)
MCFD certainly is no longer needed once the children are returned. It would be nice if the $6,000 or so tax-free monthly dollars went to the Baynes instead of the foster parent.
Benificiaries of the CP industry would like more kids to have special needs so that there are more demands of their pathetic services and squeeze more money from taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteWhat a horrible thing to do, when Zabeth is already under so much stress, to insinuate, in the creepiest manner, that MCFD knows the most private details of the Bayne family, and is waiting in the wings for the birth to do who knows what.
ReplyDeleteThe Baynes supporters grow every day, in numbers and commitment. MCFD is doomed to fail, and should just quit while they are behind. The fact Zabeth is pregnant is only going to draw more support for her and her family, and the re-unification of the Bayne family.
And to the person making comments at 3 pm and 3:52 pm, I find your comments similar in tone to Jensen's. Bethany WAS NOT injured by anything other than an accident at home (which hundreds of thousands of children also experience). Unless of course Bethany was injured in the hospital, which is a very real possibility.
And 3:00 and 3:52, If you had your way, would every single child who got a broken arm, etc., be taken away from their parents, because it was their fault?
And Ron! How could you make a comment like you did at 4:48? Are you actually suggesting that these 3:00 and 3:52 pm commentators are commenting because they care about the Bayne children? You wrote:
"PS, Anon 3PM and 3:52PM
I have this impression that you know more about one or more of these children than most people do, so without saying more, I believe I can understand why you desire that these children's needs will be adequately met. I believe you have spoken sincerely."
These comments at 3;00 and 3:52 are obviously intended to defame the Baynes, as you seem to indicate in your previous comment regarding 3;00 and 3:52:
"It is precisely your kind of salacious statement that damns people without evidence."
Why on earth you do a 180 and suggest that whoever is making these "salacious" comments that "damn people without evidence" is sincere, is totally beyond me.
Kent is the one boy that has no "special needs" so it would be interesting to find out if he was classed as such and the foster parent was receiving double rates. I mean, how could you verify this given the secrecy within MCFD?
ReplyDeleteI bet these reprehensible social workers somehow benefit financially if they feed certain types of kids to foster parents who "play ball" with them. It would be easy to set up a joint checking account where social workers could use the second bank card to withdraw money and there would be no way to trace it. Child protection is a great way to launder money.
I read a rumor where a group of social workers operate a foster home where they alternate taking care of the kids. How they get money out of this
arrangement was unkown. Another rumor is MCFD pays for babysitters, daycare, holiday tickets, summer camp and other perks to foster parents.. on TOP of foster care fees. Oh, wait, it's not a rumor, this is on my tape recorder and in black book notes disclosure and what my kids told me.
Please be careful Anon 9:51 PM and don't catch me in your friendly fire okay. I have reason to believe that the writer to whom I responded is one of the foster parents during these many months. I also believe that this foster parent has a genuine care for the child(ren). That was the reason for my remark. It was not a 180. I still stand by my comment to her, "It is precisely your kind of salacious statement that damns people without evidence." Her initial statement was dead wrong, that "Paul and Zabeth could not handle the needs of their children... "
ReplyDeleteTo anon 8:13
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but what, exactly better qualifies the current single foster mom, a former foster child herself to care for these these three kids as opposed to their parents.
MCFD certainly is no longer needed once the children are returned. It would be nice if the $6,000 or so tax-free monthly dollars went to the Baynes instead of the foster parent.
You should probably ask the foster mom what her qualifications are. She has plenty of training and a lifetime of experience to qualify her in her position as a foster mother. And why do you think she is a single parent? She is in fact married to a very supportive husband who is very much involved with the children they care for.
And the money they get for fostering is really nobodys business. Is it ok if we say the income you earn from your work should go to someone else? Certainly not! Why do they deserve $6,000 (which isnt even correct) tax free dollars?
The Baynes are facing trial, not the families who have in the past or are now fostering their kids. And by the way foster families dont necessarily agree with every decision that is made.
Ridiculous comments like yours will not help the Bayne family at all.
Get your facts straight !
By definition a foster parent has a vested interest in not losing her clients. Think of the sums of money she is getting to do what natural parents do for free and keep a job at the same time.
ReplyDeleteHas this person even watched the Baynes with their children? How about the social workers? Finn? Was a video tape submitted to the judge as evidence?
"getting to do" what natural parents do for free? How ignorant can you be? Fostering is a job, one most foster parents take very seriously. Should we not be paid for doing our job? Would you like to work for free? I am very offended. I am a foster parent, that is my "Job" which I get a modest payment from. Of course I chose this "job" because I enjoy the challenges and rewards of it and because I love children. Should teachers not get paid for caring for children? After all, they are getting paid for something parents could do. How about daycare workers? Maybe they should fork over their income too, after all its the parents that should be caring for their kids.
ReplyDeleteI am not ever worried about children being returned to their natural homes. In fact I am very supportive of it when its possible. And our home is always full of little people. Unfortunatly, there are always kids that need somewhere safe temporarily or permanently.
Oh yeah, we have kids of our own as well. So we juggle them and foster at the same time just like others that have children and a "job" You should become a Foster Parent,good families are in demand!Go through the training, learn as much as you can. Talk to other foster parents for advice, then you will increase your understanding and maybe not make such ignorant comments.
Foster mom
Working as a foster parent is kind of like being an executioner on death row. Maybe the parents are guilty, maybe they aren't, but as long as you get paid, why worry about guilt and innocence?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think that analogy is inappropriate, consider what the permanent loss of a child feels like. I bet many parents would say it is like death. Or worse. Many of these parents spend years wondering if their children are being beaten or horribly abused. Statistics show, that unfortunately, the parents' worst imaginings are all too often true.
And all this is done on the balance of probabilities. Barbaric!
I am sure you are a good foster mom. My baby is with a good foster mom, which put my mind at rest. However, it is not like school or day care. A parent who loses their children because the police come and grab them, then they have to have all these untrue statements made about them, then they also have no choice about when or if they can see their child are not like parents accessing daycare or school. It is not a daycare, my goodness.
ReplyDeleteIf I put my baby in daycare, I could choose which one, I could choose when, a foster home is not a daycare and it is not a service. It is part of a sentence that MCFD is putting onto a parent in lieu of criminal charges when there is not a reason for criminal charges.
It can be used appropriately, a girl in my neighbourhood was put into a foster home because her parents were growing marijuana. But for parents who may not have done anything wrong, and are capable of raising their own kids,it is not the right answer.
Why would I never be a foster parent? Because you can be assured that at least some of those children have been stolen, kidnapped, from all they love.
ReplyDeleteAnd $6,000 / month is not a pittance, so quit making it sound like foster parents are so hard done by. Many of them are paying their mortgages and going on fancy holidays thanks to their "work."
"Fostering is a job"
ReplyDeleteParenting is a gift.
Reader from NYC
Do your homework anon 343
ReplyDelete$6,000 a month? thats a far cry from what we earn. and our foster kids are treated fairly and with the same love and care our homegrown children receive. Fancy holiday? We're on one right now, in campground near a lake, camping with 6 kids. Having a blast, who needs fancy! Hard done by? We love our job, wouldnt trade it for the world!
What we are witnessing here is a most cruel tyranny. The time to oppose this is now, not later, when our children, or our children's children, also become victims.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon, (foster worker) at August 18, 2010 1:00 PM;
ReplyDeleteHow much do you make for having someone else's children, if not $6,000 / month?
Doesn't it ever bother you that those children might very well have been wrongfully taken from their parents, or don't you concern yourself with such trifles?
Or perhaps all the children you have taken in are from alcholics, drug addicts and parents who beat their kids all day long?
The problem is this: while you may yourself be an exemplary foster person (though I have to question how anyone could in fact work for this corrupt ministry, in this corrupt business of child protection), the problem is this: far, far too many former foster children tell tales of horror, and we hear these stories also from parents, and others, far too often to believe that bad foster parents - those who are just in it for money or to abuse power - are so incredibly rare. Of course a bad foster parent is never going to admit they don't love or care for the foster children as much as they would have us believe.
Even Sally Schofield, who brutally murdered the child took such time and energy to adopt, never admitted to doing any wrong, and defamed little five year old Logan Marr right to the last, going on about how terribly difficult Logan was.
Some of us just don't buy the story that foster parents are just wonderful selfless people doing what they do because they so love children. Maybe some of them are. But maybe some of them aren't. Just because someone SAYS they are, doesn't mean we are going to believe them. It's not as if we are being asked to judge the worthiness of a new coffee maker here. We are talking about having power over a human life, one that is innocent, defenseless, vulnerable and precious. And one that has a real, biological family and extended family, somewhere beyond the foster house walls.
Maybe, just maybe, you love the foster children like your own. But words won't necessarily convince all of us of that, not after what some of us have seen, heard or read.