Paul and Zabeth Bayne had it all. They were young. They had love for one another, faith in God, a home and property for children to play on. They had one son whose birth was not easy for Zabeth, and then another son born with the challenges of serious prematurity, born at 25 weeks. Zabeth and Paul had strength, resiliency and determination. They took this child for medical checks several times each week and various services to assist his development were brought into the family home, services to assist with feeding and muscle toning and general health developmental. Their family doctor was pleased with the children's health and the parents' care of their children. And then a daughter was born and their joy was immeasurable. She too had a premature birth.
The Ministry of Children became involved with the Baynes during the first year of their second child's life, prior to the arrival of the baby girl. At his sixth month he was suddenly crying inconsolably and as he squirmed they noticed his arm hung limply. Tests at hospital revealed a fracture. Standard protective procedure you might say. 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 a Bayne file had begun in the MCFD database.
Paul and Zabeth have looked forward to a large and thriving family and they love their children, so the family of five was just beginning their lives together when that determinative day occurred. The new baby was doing well, fed well, slept well – all was well. Of course she, like her brother would contend with the conditions that pertain to premature birth. Then a household accident. Can be perceived as preposterous but then how many similar mishaps have occurred in our homes. This one had serious consequences. One child active and happy fell on the baby resting on a blanket on a carpeted floor where daddy could see her and to whom mommy would soon return from the other room. Zabeth says she saw the fall. You know much of the rest of this story. Within hours their girl's feeding habits changed and other serious signs prompted Paul and Zabeth to take her to local hospitals and clinics without anyone accurately identifying her issues over several days. Then at last the baby was taken to BC Children's Hospital where the brain bleed and other symptoms were noted and the shaken baby syndrome assessment was made.
Even the RCMP needed to investigate a possible case of abuse but closed that down early. The MCFD was loath to discard the SBS and Abuse storyline, even when other medical experts disputed the SBS diagnosis. What you will not know is the archived attitudes, tactics, setups and actions by the local MCFD to sustain the assumption of risk to the children at the hands of their parents or to trip up the parents. I won't bother covering it. Journalists are poised and will be all over this. I am guessing that when these become public, Victoria will not be pleased.
Do you mean there is confirmation from one or more news agencies who have committed to do documentaries?
ReplyDeleteNothing like a confirmation. Inferences.
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of generalized review reports from the BCTF and RCY that may be of interest.
ReplyDeleteChildren in Care - A report to the Representative for Children and Youth
from the
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation
October 2009 (5 pages)
http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/Briefs/ChildrenInCareReport.pdf
Their is another report mentioned that is on the RCY website, "Kids Crime and Care 2009" (94 pages)
http://www.rcybc.ca/Images/PDFs/Reports/Youth%20Justice%20Joint%20Rpt%20FINAL%20.pdf
The BCTF remedy is to ask for more money and resources, and for MCFD to release their stranglehold on basic information about children in care attending schools.
MCFD already gives the schools some money, BCTF just "needs" more. The problem here is if they get it, more removals from school might occur.
I would suggest that instead, BCTF develop a clearer criteria for factors they do have immediate control over that would serve to reduce the number of children removed from schools in the first place, and to not give blanket access by MCFD social workers to children in school by allowing them to be pulled out of class and interrogated without witnesses on school grounds.
BCTF is correct on their observations of negative education outcomes of children in care that are made known to the school system. My children's school grades dropped from A's to C's in the short time they were in custody (the word "care" is certainly not applicable for what my children went through).
My children were removed and forced to change schools. The new teachers knew my children were living in foster homes, but did not help. Instead, they avoided my kids and attributed their poor performance to the fact they were in care and gave inneffective suggestions for improvement (which involved the foster parents becoming more involved in the children's education.)
The foster parents did not help (in all three foster home placements), and they did not encourage or help with homework The teacher were unaware the children's grades were previously "A" level, even though school records were transferred.
Because MCFD is adversarial, they place higher priority on villifying parents in order to continually validate removal logic throughout the rentention period.
So, if the children are recorded as doing poorly in school, this is then attribued to poor historical parenting, not the fact the removal itself causes such damage. MCFD-controlled "therapy" or "counselling" is employed at the expense of working with with schools that are in a better position to help children given their greater contact with them.
If children do well in care and in school, then there is less reason not to return the children to their parents where they can then be shown how to maintain this higher standard of care.
I would hope the documentaries make an effort to show the Baynes' situation is not unique, and not as extreme as in other cases.
The problem of inappropriate child removals needs to be shown has reached epidemic proportions.
"Your child could be next, and there will be nothing you can do about it."