Counsel for the Baynes, Doug Christie, said he needed one hour but he took only twenty minutes to make his summation statement which was impassioned and emphatic and authoritative. He needed no more time because he underscored the failure by the opposing counsel to present any actual evidence to warrant a continuing care order based upon demonstrable risk. At best there had been suspicion but that is not evidence! What kind of shelf life can suspicion reasonably have. It has lasted far too long already. It should have been discarded within weeks and months of the original removal of the children. Instead the Ministry continued with a care program for the children that has separated a family for almost three years. All that because of a presumptive insistence that two innocent parents confess to inflicting an unthinkable trauma to their child. And now we soon will listen to the presumptive call for permanent removal of these children from mommy and daddy. And Jensen said he needs a full day. Oh, I understand it.
It was precisely because of Doug Christie's reminder that no genuine evidence had been presented by MCFD counsel during the course of the hearing that now begs the question, why does Finn Jensen require an entire day to bring his summation on September 21, 2010. The answer I suppose is no more profound than this - when you have nothing to say, you snow job it, filibuster, pad it, so he will talk and talk and attempt to make it appear that the evidence is overwhelming that these children should never be returned to their biological parents. If the evidence was incontestable Jensen could restate it in fifteen minutes, sit down and be confident that the Judge will rule in his favour. To schedule an entire day in court to speak exclusively to the Judge is an insult – an assumption that his honour is so thick that he has not heard much of anything during all the days of court or he will miss it in reading the court transcripts and he now needs everything to be re-articulated in minute detail.
So hear is my ideal scenario.
- Jensen on the 21st September.
- Rapid written response from Doug Christie once he receives the transcript of the Jensen summary.
- Deliberation by the Judge and then his ruling so that on October 22nd, 2010, exactly three years from the date of removal of the children in 2007, those three children will run into the waiting arms of their mom and dad.
- And I trust that Judge Crabtree will find sufficient cause to recommend to the Ministry of Children an independent inquiry into this particular case for the purpose of improving the manner in which cases of this kind are conducted, with a view to working with parents, following prescribed time-lines and protocols, operating with greater transparency and disclosure with parents.
- And when the family of five soon to be six are together, and I provide a week of followup blog posts, I can close this down on October 29th, 2010, exactly one year since I began writing in support of Paul and Zabeth and the kids.
I pray this is so. Until the next one who most likely will have no voice. God help us.
ReplyDeleteI hear you, but I am ageing and the Alzheimers may kick in and some other writers will have to step up.
ReplyDeleteIn Tuesday's bulletin note about the foster child who died, a writer, Anon 9:06 AM wrote something that pertains to this present post and I didn't want you to miss it. I have pasted it here.
ReplyDeleteThe timeline sounds quite reasonable, given the original trial started back in January and was only supposed to last three weeks.
- Transcripts usually take a week, and sometimes two, depending on how busy the transcription service in Chilliwack is.
- Doug Christie might well need more than a week if he needs to respond and research Finn Jensen's legal argument, since Doug is not an expert on CFCSA law. I recall Finn Jensen's rebuttal of Christie's submission when the Bayne's were trying to get more access, and he spent some time educating the judge on CFCSA, his limitations, and the threat of appeal.
I would like to see a posting of all available transcripts and the judge's ruling. This would a great reference that would be valuable for similar cases.
I would expect the ruling to be something exceeding fifty pages.
This decision in particular will be a considerable amount of work for this judge, and given his current responsibilities, he may need a month, possibly two to write this.
I would hope the judge would be going through the evidence as we speak to cut down his response time.
The concern I would have as this drags on is the stress this lack of closure now presents on Paul and Zabeth with the new baby.
There will likely be press. I can't imagine CBC not covering the story in more detail than they have in the past. The birth of the Baynes new baby will also be news. There will likely be many updates on the Bayne's facebook page and website!
Ron, are you joking? If Finn Jensen made his presentation in only one hour, what sort of bill could he present? With an all day hearing and an all day preparation at $400.00 and hour he could get $5,000 plus. If he had a fixed rate contract he could do it in ten minutes.
ReplyDeleteI had a legal aid lawyer and I later learned that she was in deep with the ministry. She advised me to agree with statements that they made that were not true as 'the ministry has all the power'. I can not erase that now from my legal record. I also could have asked for interm custody before MCFD got a chance to get their case together. I was at court and they were not ready yet. But my lawyer advised me to ask for an adjournment. Later at mediation I saw that they were all old friends, my lawyer, their lawyer, the mediator, the director, my SW. They ordered a catered lunch and even when we were supposed to have privacy, they sent in the mediator who was two sided, to spy on us. They each made at least $800 for the day. The MCFD lawyer put hours into the case. I imagine she made thousands. That is how it works, and why they are so excited to catch a family, like a fisherman catches a fish!!!!
ReplyDelete