Thursday, August 12, 2010

WHAT THIS POOR MOTHER HAS ENDURED/ Part 277 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

If Judge Crabtree's ruling grants the MCFD its Continuing Care Order, it will effectively become a wrongful conviction of Paul and Zabeth Bayne, 'guilty' of abusing their youngest child, a seven week old daughter.

What am I talking about? That's preposterous! Judge Crabtree is not going to let the State have these children. He has already seen through the Ministry veneer to the shoddy case work. He has recognized the wretched gamesmanship that motivated a CCO application to dismantle this family. He knows what is in the best interests of these children. He has seen that the shaken baby diagnosis of the Baynes' youngest child falls short of being a conclusive foundation upon which a Ministry should mount a continuing care order to take three children away from biological parents. On Tuesday he watched and listened to Dr. Patrick Barnes, in my opinion the most articulate medical expert witness to date. Barnes disputed the finality of an SBS diagnosis in this Bayne case because in his mind the 2007 studies of Baby B point to something else. Further, it is his claim that this kind of error in diagnosis is responsible for numerous miscarriages of justice in the USA and Canada.

He reported that the skeletal findings strongly indicated the presence of a metabolic or dysplastic bone condition (e.g. congenital rickets) in Baby B. Such a condition is particularly prevalent in North America and usually associated with vitamin D deficiency in pregnant and breast feeding mothers and their infants. Such bony abnormalities readily respond to vitamin D supplementation or therapy and often resolve without showing the usual evolution / healing changes of fractures (e.g. callous). Barnes made it clear that the fluid collections in the baby's brain were chronic and weeks to months old. Those findings therefore were consistent with both a trauma of a difficult birth and with the impact head trauma of an older sibling falling on the infant which is what Paul and Zabeth reported. SBS need not have been the only cause and the one on which MCFD built its case.

Tuesday afternoon and all of yesterday Doug Christie led Zabeth Bayne by questions through a painful recounting of her prematurely born children and her contacts with the Ministry of Children. Her second child, a son, was born at 25 weeks. She told how when the child came home she and Paul invited numerous services into their home to advise them about infant development, feeding, muscle toning, developmental assistance and therapies. In early weeks they took the child for medical reviews several times per week and later once each week. Six months later around February 2006 lightening struck and the Ministry became involved with them. The second child was crying relentlessly in the car. Attending to him they found that an arm hung limply and a hospital visit revealed a fracture. Both parents were questioned. Paul was asked to leave his house for two weeks. A study identified prematurity of bones in the child and Paul was permitted to resume his role at home. But MCFD had a foot inside the door of this home.

The complexities within this case history are extraordinary. The circumstances, the complications, the intersections of people and agencies, the bad fortune and the interruptions and the pressures are overwhelming for everyone involved.

The Baynes moved from townhouse in Langley to a property and home in Hope, B.C. They struck up a friendship with a husband and wife at a church which they began to attend, (a couple named in court and in the court transcript and in CBC News). This was the testimony: Within months the casual friendship declined and became strained. Why? Zabeth's testimony was that tension occurred because of business competition - both women ran music schools. Zabeth taught music for years and planned to start one in her new home. Her new friend wanted Zabeth to teach out of her music school located in the church. She would be paid $10 per hour minus $2 for use of church space. On her own Zabeth earned $40 per hour so she declined and that issued in this response from the woman. “I'm going to bury you.” Zabeth stated that under oath and it is in the court transcript. On another occasion when Zabeth and her mother and their children were shopping in Walmart, they found themselves behind this same lady. She accused Zabeth of following her and complained to the RCMP swearing out a restraining order. Nothing more came of that. This husband and wife became two of the collateral witnesses that MCFD used early in the hearing.

Zabeth was pregnant with Baby B in October 2006. Because of grave concerns about prematurity, Zabeth was given a surgical procedure that required many months until birth. This family spent little time in sunshine and had little money for supplements such as Vitamin D. Earlier Dr. Patrick Barnes pointed out that this was a significant factor in the Baby's pre-birth and post birth development. Then on Aug 3, 2007 Baby B was born at 34 weeks at 5 lbs. 3oz and spent two weeks in an incubator and was losing weight. Parents spent every day with her in hospital as Zabeth's mother took care of the boys. She came home on Aug 17th and weighed 5 lbs 1 oz. There was concern about her weight from the start. Initially she seemed normal, was sleeping and feeding every two hours. She was taken for medical weigh ins every few days. On Sept 23rd their middle son fell on Baby B. She whimpered but no marks and injuries were obvious until within hours the baby's feeding dropped off. After doing all they could to attend to this vomiting listless baby they took her to Hope Hospital on Sept 26. This began a harried series of doctors, medical opinions, treatments, hospital transfers – Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Everything that they were told to do for her, the Baynes did. At some point during this post birth frenzy, court testimony indicates that the couple mentioned above, informed MCFD that they thought the Bayne children were small for their ages, the new baby listless and that Zabeth may be suffering from Munchausen syndrome. MCFD investigated. Then after many weeks of repeated visits to doctors without resolution, on October 18th after another visit to the local hospital she was transferred to B.C. Children's Hospital. There within a short time Dr. Colborne made her diagnosis. By October 21st MCFD was involved, social workers picked up the two sons and a social worker from Vancouver picking up Baby B. There was much more but that was the start of the lengthy tale that has also been conveyed in earlier posts on this blog.

Zabeth's testimony continued Wednesday and will possibly continue today and will include cross examination by Finn Jensen. Judge Crabtree made it clear yesterday that this hearing is going to conclude on Friday. Whether or not he will rule then is unknown.

29 comments:

  1. private message:
    If he does not rule (written) insist on verbal conclusion. Judge already knows where he goes. Also very important defense speech; all witnesses and accusations have to be summarized. All bad tricks and damages, mistakes, bad decisions, incompetence reminded to judge and put in short form on record. All good point put on record. Especially if they will take legal actions against ministry. Ask judge for the court transcripts (will take very long time) and make court to pay for it. (Ministry did not ask they will not get it, doctors also). Ask judge to pay for witnesses that had to attend in Baynes trial, videoconferencing and more. It is for the best interest of the children. It is their money that was stolen. I think judge will protect ministry in his ruling, going 50-50. So give him less chance. Unfortunately, after all this done the attitude of other people will be "ya its sucks to be you; get a life" You can post some part of my message Please do not reveal my location

    ReplyDelete
  2. At 5:05 AM an Anonymous sent me a note marked Private. I am assuming that you did not want the entirety of your comment to be posted publicly so I have not done that. Instead, I have sent your advice to the Baynes and their lawyer. I am sure Mr. Christie is very experienced in summations and yet he may find your advice a helpful reminder. thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Continuing with the topic of ethics. Dilemma
    Dealing with dilemma requires special skills. Often workers will be faced with a choice of evils and must try to find the course of least evil. In these situations, doing nothing is the worst of all possible choices. How does one resolve dilemma? First one needs to be fully aware that one is dealing with dilemma --with a choice of evils. Whatever is chosen has disadvantages and one needs to be aware of it. Of course whatever one chooses will find its critics. The skill is not to defend it, but to try to lessen the disadvantage. Armchair critics will generally propose an idealistic solution, which is unrealistic and unavailable. When choosing the least evil, always be prepared to review and change it if needed. Do not get entrenched.
    A good example of dilemma is in the much discussed issue of abortion In theory the choice is between having abortion or not having it. In the real world the choice is between having legal abortion or illegal abortion. Over-liberal use of abortion is undesirable. Illegal abortion has caused much harm and death. To listen to both factions-pro-choice and pro-llifem, each tries to claim the high road. Yet in truth each is just trying to make the best of a bad job. Harm reduction is certainly espoused by both sides, by trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing more tragic in life than an unwanted child. Pro-choice provide birthright homes and so on.
    I think we saw an example of this happening in the Bayne case. The director was in a dilemma, because he became aware of all the dissenting medical opinion. He had been so certain of Dr Colbourne's opinion and now it was seriously questioned. What to do? How do you tell Colbourne you doubt the reliability of her opinion. The choice of evils. Go with a disputed opinion, or take the safe course and back out. The worse choice was made. He dithered. Eventually it was decided to get an independent opinion on all the various medical opinions. Then another bad choice. Time sped by and they had done nothing. Another dilemma. He could not back out after two years without looking bad. Solution --call as string of witnesses to make the case as long as possible and run the Baynes out of money. Should have made a quick decision when there was still time to limit damage. Failure to deal with dilemma can cause great harm.
    Obviously the workers in the Bayne case needed to learn rudimentary skills at knowing what is good evidence and what is bad evidence and understanding some basic legal principles. I dedicate chapter 5 to this. They had no ability to distinguish between fact, opinion, hearsay, assumption and rumour. Need training in the worst way. If you cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, how can you tell truth from falsehood?
    I have given the briefest of sketches about what should be in core training. This is just a start to get people launched without doing too much damage. Child protection is a lifetime of learning and requires personal commitment and a strong code of ethics. This means among other things, the ability to admit mistakes, to make amends and to learn from them. Sad to say, the management of the children's ministry has made a concerted effort over the years to turn their staff into bureaucratic functionaries. Staff have become fillers of forms, checkers of checklists. One of the social workers in the Bayne case recently told them that he was just a puppet in all this and he was really not responsible for all that had happened. He could have spoken for many staff. No room for a code of ethics in all this by the look of it.
    I will probably not be writing much more. By tomorrow,I hope there will be jubilation in the hearts of all Bayne supporters. If you really want to know a great deal more about how to do a good job in child protection, read my book,

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find it very heartbreaking that parents who are so sincere and did all the right things to take proper care of children who were born premature have been treated like this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously, child removal authority was abused by various parties.

    Those in favor of granting gov't this authority should think twice. Do you have to lose your loved one before you change your mind?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul and Zabeth have such good hearts, it is abhorrent to them to treat others in the manner they have been treated.

    In court, you absolutely cannot afford to be "nice" to the other party and hope that this will get you brownie points with the judge. It does not work.

    I don't know how much Zabeth held back of the full range of horror all her collective family have experienced at the hands of this reprehensible Ministry and their willful silence on this matter, and I'm sure she would not have had enough time if she was so questioned.

    The "win" must preclude a later appeal by the Ministry, it must preclude a possible re-removal if the Ministry decides to ignore an order to return the children. The Ministry does this all the time.

    If the public eye is there covering the stoy, perhaps tomorrow will be the end. CBC's Go Public needs to be there tomorrow and possibly other news organizations, so get on the phone readers and alert the various news groups who have written about the Baynes in the past to be aware of tomorrow. Don't assume they have already been contacted.

    I noticed the first edit of today's blog included names of people who made malicious reports on the Baynes, and later this was replaced with a link to a CBC story. I perhaps would not have been so considerate.

    With respect to Ray's comment that social workers are claimin they are "puppets" I say nonsense. The reverse is more likely true. These front line workers and team leaders work hand in hand to repeatedly achieve the same results without help from above - unless they get into trouble, like they did this time.

    When they need extra ammunition, that is when they turn to their bosses to support their actions and provide further encouragement.

    In comedy acts, it is the puppet that is the wooden lifeless doll at the center of attention, and the controller is viewed as the sidekick. In horror shows, like Chucky and the Bride of Chucky, the puppets are viewed as lifeless and harmless, even cute. But they come to life and kill because they are possessed.

    Continue fighting hard, Paul and Zabeth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. People should attend in court to grasp the magnitute of the abuse of power by the state and MCFD. It's singularly shocking, and could happen to any one of us. We need to stick up for the Baynes, in whatever way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have said it before and I will say it again. Christian reader, don't talk about prayer or just think about it. Pray for this case, this couple and these children tonight and the next few days. Win, lose or draw, there will be incredible strain on all involved. May the Lord's will be done and bring glory to His name!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lies! Lies! Lies!! I'm sorry, but as a first hand witness to the "Other couple" AND the Baynes while they lived in Hope, all of these allegations re: the music school are a pathetic attempt to shift blame.Whatever Judge Crabtree decides to believe is up to him, but I know the truth. In fact I was offered a chance to teach with the 'same music school' even before the Baynes received an offer.....and I'm sorry, but the offer they gave me was nothing close to what Zabeth is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My name is Elizabeth Hoffman, I know your very first reaction to that name will be hatred, but it is only because you have heard just one side of a story. Up until now I have taken a high road and have not commented to the media or blogs out of respect for the bayne children. But tonight my heart is heavy and I simply must make comment and all I would ask is that you listen to my words and simply consider the possibility of something then other of what you have heard. Paul and Zabeth Bayne began attending our church some years ago. My husband and I were both sympathetic to all the Baynes had been through with their boys and because of this when Zabeth fell pregnant after a recent miscarriage and began to have complications our hearts went out to the family. As a church we reached out to the Baynes, supplibg them with food and bessesities to ease the stress of daily life in their financially hard times. On a personal front, my husband and I spent much time looking after the children and zabeth in their home before Paul left his job to be with them. This is all documented and can be backed up with signed statements from various church members and our church board who was also involved. Dureing this time I decided to discontinue teaching out of my home and to open up a fully gunrunning music school as the town had nothing of the sort at that time. I asked Zabeth if she would be interested in teaching for is, to be paid $30.00 an hour, the same as all out other teachers were offered. Paul even signed a copy of the church board minutes where this was discussed as the teaching would be happening in the church.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 2


    Zabeth asked to think about it. We had mentioned that we gave the church $2.00 for every half hour as rent and they would probably expect the same, but we would not be taking a cut from her. We also have a signed statement from the piano teacher I hired a few days after Zabeth declined our offer in august. There was absolutly no hard feelings and we continued our friendship after that. Even to the point that when they felt they could Bo longer look after a new puppy they had just naught, we offered to look after the puppy until a new home could be found, even though we already had two dogs of our own. A few days after bringing the puppy home it showed signs of Parvovirus, a deadly puppy disease. It passed it along to our pup as well and we dished out the $1000.00 vet bill only to watch the puppy die. Would someone who was on bad terms with the Baynes have done that? After Baby B was born, we continued to help by bring supplies and delivering gifts from people in the church. We set up meals and continued to stay in touch. However the Baynes were not coming to church at this point as they said they had been advised by nurses to keep baby b at home for 6 months away from people. This is where we started to get concerned. They slowly started to withdraw into themselves and we would catch snitchets here and there about baby b not doing well. We grew conceded that something was wrong with the baby and went to visit them while baby b was in the er. It was then that a nurse informed me that the Dr. Wouldn't mind speaking with us. We began to become increasingly concerned as we saw a pattern happen and a perfectly healthy baby backslide. Through all pf this we tried to remain in contact with the Baynes but contact became increasingly difficult as they continued to withdraw. Finaly the police showed up wanteing to question us, and I don't know about you? But when the please come to question you, you are required to tell the truth. Never in all my life have I uttered I will bury you to anyone, let alone Zabeth. My heart aches for all three children and we have only wanted the very beat possible outcome for them. I have an entire church, in fact an entire town who has stood behind us as we have been slammed through the Internet and media. We are good people, pastors, ministers of God and yet our hearts and souls are troubled by everything that has gone on. Our hearts ach for Paul and Zabeth and whatever has caused the type of behavior that began all this, but most of all as a mother, my heart aches for all three of those children. So take my words as you will. My path is righteous and true, God knows our heart and our intentions and we would live to see this family healed of whatever affliction caused all this and pray for the best possible outcome. But I would also add that everything that we were accused of in court was disproved with solid evidence to support us within 24 hours of our testimony. My husband and I are leaving town, leaving our church family in a few weeks in large part because of this situation. We have been spattered with death threats and nasty comments and need now to protect our own family. I would ask that you reach deep in your hearts and if you are a person of faith ask God for his dicernment in this situation. May God bless you all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This family has been traumatized beyond belief. Give the children back. In years to come, this will be looked upon as one of the great injustices and tragedies of the century.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I still say that no amount of training can cure the problems of MCFD. The people there, whether the lowliest caseworker or the highest level executive, suffer from a lack of conscience. There is no way a humane person could do what they do. They are perfectly aware, that's why you'll so often hear about them snickering as some poor parent suffers immensely.

    Let's call a spade a spade and quit pretending that more money or training could solve this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A Message from the United Kingdom:

    Wishing the Baynes the best of luck...

    It's good "persausive" evidence for all future cases in the UK; all commonwealth countries can use it, which is why it's so important to everyone. And why the resistance will be huge and overwhelming on the Bayne's solicitor. It'll take a heavy gun to outwit the state, judiciary and SS. But they do exist... and war drums are pounding.

    The people are "willing" these heavy guns to win now.... something the govts have noticed, as well as the judiciary and they're in a bit of a tizzy over it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Elizabeth Hoffman,
    I admire you for bravely writing personally and under your name on this blog to express your disagreement with what has been testified to in court this week. You have given detailed information to dispute what the court was told. I am sure that you have felt the stress of some public opinion which has been supportive of the Baynes. I know also that you have a support network among your church family and beyond. I regret to hear that you have felt threatened by hostile minded people. In reporting this ongoing story it is certainly not my personal agenda or intent to cause you grief. I have recounted again this week what the court heard. Whenever two sides to a story are told, it generates a great deal of consideration and thought and I am certain that your comments will as well. Other people may make comments, and in this case I want to assure you that I will reject any comment that makes a verbal attack against you. I have approved your comments to contest my report of courtroom witness and now will make the administrative decision to bring an end to this aspect of the subject. I wish you and your husband God's best as you make your location move.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Where is the earlier post that Elizabeth Hoffman is responding to? This is very one sided as I cannot read what she is responding to. Both posts should be deleted, if in fact the earlier post has been deleted (the one Elizabeth Hoffman is responding to). I'm not sure it is right to post one, or even both sides, at this stage of the trial.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The question should be, did it happen? Was the baby shaken? If the baby was shaken, did the shaking harm the baby?

    Those are the only questions relevant in this matter.

    I, for one, feel a great disservice has been done to the Bayne family because the above question (s) were lost somewhere, somehow in hearsay.

    Reader from NYC

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just stumbled across this earlier on the blog:

    http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.com/2010/02/for-love-and-for-justice-part-110.html

    "THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS FROM RAY FERRIS,former social worker and now an outspoken critic of the MCFD.

    "Please do not be too hard on Finn Jensen. He has an unenviable task in view of the documentary evidence."

    Let me get this straight, Mr. Ferris: We're supposed to feel sorry for Finn Jensen, or have some sympathy for him, because he has a tough job because of the evidence or lack thereof? No one is holding a gun to his head. He doesn't have to make a living taking away other people's children. And by admitting, Mr. Ferris, that Jensen has a tough job, aren't you saying that the children should be returned to the Baynes? And if this is what you think, then why should we have anything but distain (to put it mildly) for a man who makes his living ripping apart families?

    I really wish you would stop apologizing for, and defending, all these MCFD employees. They know the harm they do, and they continue to do it, not because they believe they are protecting children, but because they chose to make a living regardless of how it affects innocent parties. This is just wrong. So please don't ask for sympathy or empathy for these MCFD employees. I have more respect for street people. At least I don't see them yanking children from their parents.

    I could have said all of this in a nice, syrupy way, but that is part of the problem here, the distortion and manipulation of language. What we are dealing with is the most brutal, violent, horrific act that a family can experience, short of being murdered. So let's not pretend that we should be feeling empathy, or concern, for the fact that the family destroyer has a hard time of it because of lack of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think that it is true that many people who talk to MCFD have no idea of the damage they do. They may well mean no harm and are genuinely concerned and looking for the best outcome. I believe that at one time, MCFD could really help families. However, not anymore. I am in an unusual position as I have been able to get full disclosure (usually impossible) for the most part. So I saw the communication from when my daughter was seized. It was awful to read of the jubilation and back slapping from the e-mails written by the child protection social workers. They set up a plan when I was sincerely in hospital to get care for my child. They planned to take one child away who was ill and my baby. It was very sad for my family.
    It is not a good group who can take kids away and be so happy about it. Now it seems I am being proven right, and may have victory. But I have still suffered. It is worse than a jail sentence to lose your kids. In fact some moms in jail have been able to keep their kids. Yet, not Paul and Zabeth. Not me either. I cried and cried.
    I have also worked to educate maybe 300 people to never phone MCFD on anyone, no matter what. It is not a valid child protection agency until it improves itself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was reading of the rights given to those convicted of crimes. Rights that parents do not have. There is 'Askov' which is the right to a speedy trial. There is 'Strinchcombe' which is the right to have the Crown reveal evidence to the defendant. I believe MCFD should change to be brought under the rules of criminal law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To Anon August 12, 2010 12:48 PM

    There is nothing the good judge could do in prohibiting MCFD from holding on the kids if he rules against the CCO and from appealing. These are MCFD's statutory rights. Moreover, there is no provision in CFCSA to allow him to punish those SW found lying or fabricating evidence to justify removal. This is outside a provincial court judge's power.

    This is one of the many compelling reasons that CFCSA must be repealed in its entirety.

    Ferris' comments are totally useless in solving the problems created by state sponsored child removal. The value of his comments confines to shedding insights to the mind set of one of the service providers in the child protection industry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For Anon 12:04 AM
    Elizabeth Hoffman was responding to the post directly associated with her comment. She refers to the content of Blog post #277 and the references there. I did not use either her name or her husband's on this occasion, even though their names have appeared publicly in CBC printed text, in the court transcripts and also in two previous references on my blog, #107 and #110.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello Anon 12:19 AM – You fail to hear Ferris' satirical tongue in cheek tone in his comment. That's the challenge of writing and reading online. The nuances of personality and vocal tone are missing. So now when you know that he is poking fun at the pathetic nature of the MCFD case which Jensen is representing can you hear as well the smiing sarcasm behind the words, "Please do not be too hard on Finn Jensen. He has an unenviable task in view of the documentary evidence."

    I can tell you personally that Ferris is one of the best allies that disenfrachised parents have when warring with MCFD. You're picking fights with the wrong person.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello ANONYMOUS WHO COMMENTED AT 1:46 AM
    I have not published your comment concerning the Hoffmans.
    Your piece was energetically and eloquently written and was not offensive within a comment section of this nature and contains much that could easily have generated further commentary but following Elizabeth Hoffman's comments yesterday, I posted a comment in which I stated an administrative choice to curtail further comments related to them or by them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ron,

    Perhaps Ray Ferris was being satirical; I'm not convinced he was. The reason I am not convinced is because I see from all his other commentary that he is essentially in favour of the state having this great, horrific power, and because he keeps writing about how the brutalities such as the Baynes experienced can be cured by training. This is not a problem of training; that is like saying that the police who killed Robert Dziekanski at the airport would have not done so, had they known rudimentary Polish.

    These are people who take pleasure in another's pain, especially great pain - the pain of losing what is dearer than life to you.

    We have seen repeatedly on this blog how parents have been crushed to see the pleasure these "untrained" social workers or caseworkers take in destroying families. These are not isolated experiences. This has absolutely nothing to do with "training." People of a very questionable nature are gravitating to child protection. And they are getting hired. Just like the RCMP. And the ones who work with them, who know they are doing harm, are doing nothing. So, therefore, the entire organization is corrupt.

    "Training" will not cure such endemic corruption. If a person can't see what they are doing is horribly wrong, or if they can see and they don't care, "training" will not solve the problem. Do we seek to "train" serial killers? Please don't reject that comparison, because what we are dealing with here is serial family killers. Contracted by the government.

    I am not the first person to suggest that the power of the state to rip apart a family is akin to murder:

    "Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case” (In re Smith). The power to terminate parental rights is an “awesome power” (Champagne v. Welfare). “It is tantamount to a civil death penalty” (Drury v. Lang)."

    http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/termination-of-parental-rights/

    Unfortunately parents who get "death penalty" sentences don't have the Innocence Project and innumerable high profile lawyers helping them out. In this case, the Baynes are extremely fortunate (unlike most parents) to have a lawyer - Doug Christie - who takes his oath as an officer of the court seriously.

    It's important to keep the brutality of this act in mind. That what we are dealing with here is not a traffic ticket, or a job loss; it is a lifelong torture and imprisonment, for both the children and the parents, and to a lesser extent, but still very keenly felt, the family and close friends. And even those who think they are unaffected should know that every one of these "death penalties," or as the Orwellian language of child protection puts it - child "removals" - takes our society a little bit closer to Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The generic term officer of the court (not to be confused with court officers) applies to all those who, in some degree in function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a legal part—and hence legal and deontological obligations—in the complex functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_court

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was in mediation and it went well or as well as it could go. I still feel the heaviness of being mistreated and some people who were bad to me who are not even MCFD but had a patronizing attitude and argued with me in favour of MCFD. It all weighs on my soul. I think there is spiritual refreshment to deal with all of this. I think people are lost to make such causes against people and not think it is evil. This is the state hurting people badly and for no reason. It is a very odd system and does no good.

    ReplyDelete
  28. People should be allowed to respond to the highly defamatory comments of Elizabeth Hoffman. Either that, or get rid of them (her comments)altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous 11:37 PM
    I hear you.
    I will take your comment into consideration.
    Presently my choice was made because I simply do not want to divert attention from the worthy characters in this story, as will most certainly happen if I publish a stream of comments aimed to put the Hoffmans in their places.
    Having said that, I realize how her comments appear to dismiss or at least oppose Zabeth's testimony, without Zabeth being able to counter. You see, this could go on and on. The Hoffman testimony doesn't count for anything in this trial, because it was not evidence related to the injuries.

    ReplyDelete

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise