The Bayne house that the two oldest children may remember is gone. It became fodder to fuel the mounting legal bills. But the adage is 'home is where the heart is,' so the children have felt the love of home when meeting with mommy and daddy during visitations twice per week and recently three times per week when the Judge extended the privilege. Further, home will be in a new location, where the children will find some familiar treasures and where this interrupted family may once again practice the liberty of life and embark upon a happiness they never envisioned could be so violently discontinued.
Soon however, in fact seven days from today, the case before the court will come to a conclusion. That is, the actual in-court sessions will conclude. As I have noted earlier, on the 21st of September Ministry of Children's legal counsel, Mr. Finn Jensen is scheduled to deliver his summation to Judge Crabtree. The day has been scheduled for him and he may use a morning and afternoon to summarize his case for a Continuing Care Order for which the Ministry has applied. A CCO application assumes that the regional Ministry's director and social workers are so convinced that all three children face predictable risk and endangerment if they are returned to their birth parents that the only reasonable and only guaranteed security for them is to remove them permanently. A CCO application must assume that these parents, both of them, or one of them with the complicity of the other are so dishonest, so unreliable, so untrustworthy, they should never be entrusted with their children again. These must be two people past the point of any redemption. This family must be beyond the point of redemption.
Yet, that assessment does not square with the convictions that lifetime or long term friends have of Paul and Zabeth.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the director and social workers are themselves convinced that taking these children away from the parents forever is the right course of action. Instead I surmise that this CCO measure is little more than legalistic protocol necessitated by the content of a file, which to ignore or second guess, might imply poor case work. It is butt-covering. But how dare public servants expend children's lives and happiness to protect their own reputations. Mr. Jensen himself is on record as having expressed to his client that a case to keep the two oldest children is unwinnable.
Paul and Zabeth are not guilty and in denial. They are innocent and in denial of the wrongdoing that is assumed but unproven. The evidence component is precisely where this Ministry case comes unglued. During the entire drawn out court case, no testimony or report has been presented by the MCFD lawyer that can stand as evidence. It has been opinion, rumour and hearsay. Judge Crabtree has noted this. Jensen will need to do legal acrobatics to be convincing. He is capable but the 21st will be a long day the Ministry will not be helped. It would be far better if ministry minds saw that the gracious restoration of this family even now has the potential to enhance the Ministry reputation by validating its priority of the best interests of the children.
I suspect the real work for the Baynes side will begin after Finn's summation, and they will not have much time to do it. I rather suspect Mr. Christie is beginning to weary of the magnitude of tax on his pro bono time. Mr. Finn will make him work.
ReplyDeleteFinn's only salvation is to extensively quote that nasty piece of swiss cheese law that is known as the CFCSA and will be able to quote many, many judgments that support his argument.
It is interesting the Times Colonist article does not mention Judge Crabtree by name as the chief justice. Also, in the normal course of research, how can a journalist miss the fact Judge Crabtree is presiding over perhaps the worse example of judicial delay possible that would serve to underscore the point of the court delays story?
To which Times Colonist article did you refer please?
ReplyDeleteRon, I think Anon above is referring to your post of Sept 14.
ReplyDeleteReader in NYC
6:37 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Times Colonist article to which you make reference if in fact it is the one I linked on my post of Sept 14th, did not mention a judge by name, that is true. It is also true that Judge Tom Crabtree is presiding over the Bayne case. However, I have no knowledge that Crabtree also ruled in the case cited by the Colonist article. As I read your note further perhaps you are merely pointing out that since judge Crabtree is now the Chief Justice, to mention the position without giving us his name or drawing attention to this precedent setting Bayne case, may have been a missed opportunity for sure.
Ron;you raise a very good point in wondering what Finn Jensen has to work with. He has very few facts if any with which to work. As Judge Goudge pointed out, a judge is a trier of facts. Note:-not a trier of opinion rumour and hearsay. As I said before, Jensen is very skilled at spin, but even he cannot spin straw into gold. If he does succeed in appearing to do so, he is indeed a brilliant illusionist. This is not to say that no opinion counts in a court of law. However, that opinion must be able to show the facts on which it is based. The only facts here are the various medical facts found in the Bayne baby. These described a specific injury and the resultant physical effects. There is no dispute about the injury, but very different interpretations by various experts. There was only one specific injury and that was a bump on the head. The Baynes said it was an accidental bump caused by collision with a sibling. The pediatrician said that the bump could not have caused the trauma, but it had to be shaking. Ten experts disagreed. Same facts--totally different interpretation. Another problem. Bayne personal profile totally contradicts likelihood of deliberate abuse.
ReplyDeleteNow there are many, many facts which support the Baynes. Good profile, tenacious fight to keep children, dedicated access visits, fighting for more access, willing to go bankrupt on legal costs, taking night jobs to enable access and court attendance. On and on and on. What does this leave Jensen with?
Remember this case is not about the best interests of the children. This case is now about beating the Baynes at all costs in order to save face for the director and the deputy minister. When I say all costs, I really mean all costs and they will be courtesy of you and me and other taxpayers. One of the opportunities that Finn Jensen will look out for is to find grounds to appeal this case and that could include seeking an immediate superior court injunction to prevent return of the children. He can raise numerous points of precedent and law. It does not matter if they do not provide good application to this case, or are irrelevant. The judge must be very careful how he deals with them. The judge has obviously trodden very carefully in this case and he probably was trying to make it appeal proof. Why should he do otherwise? Even though all the evidence is in, he must still attend to Jensen's arguments and he must deal with them in his written judgement. Failure to do so might open the door for an appeal. I expect that Judge Crabtree's priority is the best interests of the children.If he is of the opinion that the children should be returned, he has the legal skills to deal with any legal quibbling that stands in the way. However, he cannot avoid the legal quibbles and must deal with them.
The other priority of Jensen will be to assist the director in limiting damage control. Above all he wants to make sure that the door is not left open for a suit for malicious prosecution. The current law allows for unlimited practice incompetence and dereliction of duty of care, providing it is all done 'in good faith'. In other words you can wreak any havoc you like on a family as long as it seems as if your heart is in the right place This makes it very dificult to sue the ministry. So I expect that Jensen will try to list all the "good-hearted" things the staff has done and how kind they have really been to the Baynes. Anyway Ron, you are going to court on the 21st. You will soon be able to see how good a prognosticator I am. I will eat humble pie right here if I am wrong.
Ray, how many warrants have you applied for with respect to removalsin your career versus no-warrant removals?
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly constitutes "seriously endangered" and "imminent threat" that warrants a removal without first offering services that are claimed to be responsible for return of children for redeemable parents?
None of the proposals put forward appear to address corrupt social workers and how parents can protect themselves from these people.
No one is arguing against abandoned children or placement with extended family and where parents are NOT fighting tooth and nail to get their children back.
I would submit that enforcing the use of warrants in removals would go far in eliminate incomplete or frivolous applications.
If the two social workers responsible for the removal in the Baynes case applied for a warrant, it should have been rejected for the same lack of evidence and cooberation that the RCMP rejected a charge recommendation and apologized to this family.
If the RCMP rejected charging the parents with abuse, and RCMP may have only a passing understanding of CFCSA, a judge fully conversant with the act would be LESS inclined to authorize the removal of three children for a minimum of one year, three years or permanently.
Child protection has devolved to such a state of simplification and streamlining of removal, whatever law removing workers happen to operate under becomes practically irrelevant.
There is virtually no difference in child protection removal when compared to Nazism or residential schools. The same thin justification and lack of due process for said actions exists, and certain classes of citizens are targeted for removal without due process.
The only way warrants can again be enforced is likely to initiate a class action lawsuit or two. Otherwise, most parents cannot afford any follow-up lawsuit on their own, and rich parents cannot properly illustrate damages done due to removals.
Examples:
Children removed from battered mothers (children witnessing violence)
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nicholson-v-scoppetta-class-action-lawsuit-decision
Here is a case where the parents were deemed to be "right" but were awarded $2. I imagine anyone able to afford a jury trial would have difficult showing impact on their lives.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/evidence-testimony/8906395-1.html
The important part to read is a finding that removal without offering services can serve to hold the removing social workers personally liable (which exactly happened in my case, and social workers fabricated an offering of services, which my continuous audio recording easily disputes.)
Another about removing children based on the 'imminent danger' precept that is used as an excuse for a no-warrant removal:
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/spanking/2089/Court-Revives-Suit-Against-County-Over-Warrantless-Removal-of
My opinion is MCFD's fear of lawsuit is why Berhe Golbot painstakingly went through the fact that there were prior concerns, new concerns, and that SERVICES WERE OFFERRED and accepted.
So, story being painted by MCFD is specifically to stave off a lawsuit. Despite MCFD's offering of services, they were clearly innefective and the parents chose to abuse their children AGAIN. Thus, the removal is justified and a lawsuit is not.
My remedies for starting MCFD repair:
1. Warrants
2. Register social workers with the college
3. Use BC Supreme Court application by submissions only and do away with the preliminary report to court and presentation hearing steps.
4. Removal authority for social workers rescinded, courts must authorize removals, police only have unilateral authority to ask for social worker assistance to transfer to foster care, and only if they file abuse charges.
5. Parental rights not terminated at point of removal, only after court protection hearing. Unil then, MCDF must behave like school teachers and daycare workers who have only temporary care of cildren
Class action lawsuit firm:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timescolonist.com/news/firm+targets+school+fees/3532791/story.html
Merchant Law Group, based in Regina
Ron;I hope you do not mind me posting twice today,but I wanted to keep the topics separate. I wish to respond to my friend and stalwart critic anonymous of 9.52 PM yesterday. He sees me as being a staunch defender of parents one day and an apologist for the ministry the next.He also complains that this blog is about the Bayne case and thus I assume much of my input is irrelevant. Ron, you will have to set me straight on this if I am wrong, but I understood that this blog is about the Baynes and is also a forum for anyone else that feels wronged by any child protection system. It is also to show how the Bayne case is symptomatic of the deep malaise in Canadian child protection systems and the type of input is not restricted. So anything that addresses the good and the bad in child protection is acceptable. We can all point to the atrocities generated by the MCF, but surely it is also appropriate to seek remedies?
ReplyDeleteNow Friend Anon 9.52, I see that like the bureaucrats you like to see the world in black and white terms and you do not like dilemma. The ministry is all bad and social workers are all beasts and not to take that view is to be an apologist. Life ain't like that. Let me remind you that I have written before that 30% of cases are over-investigated and 30% are under-investigated. Prior to the advent of false memory counselling in the late 1980s and also the death of Matthew Vaudreuil, I think it would be fair to say that there was mostly under-investigation. This led to numerous scandals from abuse and neglect being ignored. There has been some pendulum swinging from over to under investigating, but on the whole the current trend is to over-investigate and this causes cases like the Baynes.
If the whole protection occupation is a phony waste of time, then I have sure wasted a lot of my life along with some respected colleagues. All those kids that I have helped to grow up into happy adults must be an illusion. Let me explain to you. I believe that we must have a protection system, or we will go back to the bad old days of child exploitation and abuse. However, the child protection system must operate at a very high standard of ethics and accountability. There must be a passionate desire by social workers to protect both the rights of children and parents. To be honourable and open and respectful There must be clear pracitice concepts, good mentoring and high quality leadership.
The top brass of the child protection system have always been incompetent. In they old days they were mostly benign incompetent. They did not interfere with lousy staff, but they also left the competent supervisors to do their job unmolested. What has now changed is that the top brass are aggressive incompetent and they interfere with good staff all the time. They try to make everyone into bureaucratic functionaries. They would make Leonardo Da Vinci paint by numbers. I know of good supervisors who took early retirement, because they could no longer tolerate the interference. How can they retain good staff?
I heartily agree that the child protection system has deteriorated until it probably does as much harm as good and drastic reform is needed. The incompetence is also ruinously expensive. Just look at the Bayne case. The question is how do you set about changing things? If you look at the dismal state of child care in the nineteent century, improvements were only made when people of passionate commitment dedicated their lives to fighting for better lives for children. Now the state has evidently become one of the major abusers across Canada, we need people of passionate commitment to fight for the necessary reforms. It takes more than one retired octagenarian social worker and a retired minister. Journalists, politicians and jurists must take up the cause.
I hope, anon 9.52 PM that I do not disappoint you with my explanation. At least I hope you understand what I am saying even if we have to end up respectfully disagreeing with each other. Best wishes Ray Ferris
The office of the Chief Provincial Judge provided statistics, I believe the earlier story state a comment was not forthcoming.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timescolonist.com/news/Court+delays+harming+kids/3513096/story.html
Attorney General De Jong is reported yesterday as saying more judges will be hired in the next few weeks.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Judge+shortage+will+remedied/3531482/story.html
Thank you, Ron, very well said. This line especially jumped out at me:
ReplyDelete"But how dare public servants expend children's lives and happiness to protect their own reputations."
I plan to be there on the 21st, and urge everyone who can possibly make it to be there too. It is crucially important to support victims of such horrific injustice. Otherwise, we are no better than those who stood silent throughout history, thereby enabling atrocities such as the holocaust.
Ray,
ReplyDeletePost twice if you like. Others do as well but go by the alias, Anonymous.
You are not mistaken about the value of your comments on this blog.
Interesting that you should ask me about the purpose of the blog. You have it right. Before you asked, I had already written a post as a matter of fact that will be published tomorrow. It will speak to this, because it struck me that there has been some confusion, and candidly I have become weary of the comments addressed at you. Again, I repeat, I do not mind interaction with differences of opinion but when they cross a line that may be my own and speak to the commenter and his/her motivation, it won't be long before the comments are not seen. I have left them for you to reply until now. thanks for summing this exchange up with your recent comment.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not check your blog everyday, I do try to catch up on the posts and resulting comments. As such, I admit that I may miss some important comments and if I do repeat something previously addressed I offer my apologies.
To Ray, I do not doubt that some success stories from children genuinely saved from abuse are out there. Similarly there must exist some foster parents who do it for a love of children. I clearly stated that judging a group by the actions of a few is wrong. While I did not state so, in any group of people there usually exists those that question the status quo. This is why I believe painting the upper management of any organization with the same brush is wrong. If good people do not exist even in the minority then all is lost.
I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment that more people need to step forward to enact change. I also agree with my friend Ray that only through disagreement will we truly learn anything. Enacting change in the system will not be easy. The problem is two-fold. First, the culture inside the Ministry will be hard to change even with changed laws. Secondly, this mindset has spread to Child Protection as a whole, across borders both nationally and internationally. Of course this is not a universal truth, but sadly it may be argued convincingly that it is true the majority of the time.
What does this all mean in our quest for solutions that will keep what has happened to the Baynes from happening to others? The most common solution presented is abolishment of child removal authority. Another common theme is speeding up of court procedures. These are not mutually exclusive goals. A lessening of Removals will automatically free up court time. I am not naive enough to believe that simply taking away removal authority is the final answer. The answer is not in the idea but in its implementation.