As Mr. Finn Jensen began his summation proper he established for the Judge the foundation for the Continuing Care Order (CCO) by citing specific statements from the CFCSA, that is, the Child and Family Community Services Act for B.C.
The CFCSA contains Parts 1-9. Part 3 covers Child Protection and it is comprised of Divisions 1-7 with articles numbering from 1- 69.
First, understand that article 41.2.1 concerns a continuing care order, so 41.1.d states, “Subject to subsection (2.1), if the court finds that the child needs protection, it must make one of the following orders in the child's best interests” and the d. option states “that the child be placed in the continuing custody of the director.”
Jensen cited article 41.2.c which states “The court must not order under subsection (1) (d) that the child be placed in the continuing custody of the director unless … (c) the nature and extent of the harm the child has suffered or the likelihood that the child will suffer harm is such that there is little prospect it would be in the child's best interests to be returned to the parent.
Then Jensen pointed out that a CCO ruling by the Judge cannot be made unless the judge is satisfied that the child or children need protection and is determined by assessing the probability of harm to the children which has to be determined at the time of their removal which is between October 19-21, 2007.
Jensen emphatically stated that it is incumbent upon the Director to demonstrate probability, that is, that it is more probable than not, that there is a real likelihood that the parent(s) harmed their youngest child in 2007 and the risk has not been mitigated by admission or reasonable explanation for the baby's injuries. The severity of those injuries were recounted even as he acknowledged the disparity of interpretations of cause between the various medical experts whose reports or testimonies were submitted during the hearing. Jensen made the point that the experts who disagreed with the original SBS (Shaken Baby) diagnosis were contacted by Zabeth Bayne and that while they received medical records to review, they were also apprised of her story of one child falling on another, and in several of these cases the expert stated his professional opinion was that the injuries were consistent with such a fall. Mr. Jensen informed Judge Crabtree that he must resolve the matter of cause in order to determine if protection is needed and what order to issue. Jensen stated that these injuries were either accidental or non accidental and in the absence of a reasonable explanation for accidental cause of the the baby's injuries, there was definite risk. He sought to discount the probability that a toddler brother, clumsy and himself vulnerable by virtue of prematurity could fall on a baby lying on her tummy in such a manner as to cause the extensive hemorrhaging and skull fracture and leg fracture, and yet according to the parents' testimony, neither child demonstrably crying. Jensen pointed out that Zabeth Bayne was the only parent whose testimony the court has heard and that she herself while telling the story of the children's collision, head to head, did not see the actual collision. So this event, not seen is questionable he said and its date uncertain. Then Jensen put it to the judge rhetorically, “Who do you believe?”
I must say, I do not envy the Judge faced with this volume of documentation and the gravity of a decision that affects so many lives. That of course is a Judge's task and Chief Justice Crabtree has been here many times before.
On July 4, 2010 I wrote a blog post entitled, Continuing Care Order (CCO) / Part 239 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ at the bottom of which I said, "This blog is in support of returning the children to Paul and Zabeth..." and that continues to be true even as I have objectively recounted today's information. Now back to my painting while we wait.
And always keep in mind that there is more to this story than meets your eye in this summation representation of the Bayne family ordeal.
Those who have difficulty to believe that state-sponsored child removals are financially motivated, please watch this news footage:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMGbRt1A5A (Part 1) and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqyjnkesBM (Part 2)
Some of you folks witnessed how one breed of special interests in the "child protection" industry milked the system on September 21. Be mindful that this is just one of the many social parasites who live on the avail of "child protection".
To parents, especially those who are poor and disabled, who plan to seek help from "child protection" agency, think twice as you may be sending your children to death.
"You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts." (Amos 5:12)
Accidents do happen. I think Mr. Ferris previously pointed out that the whole "picture" must be taken into consideration. That is, Do the Bayne's fit an abuser profile?
ReplyDeleteWould abusers lose everything, home, daytime employment etc to regain their children?
Would abusers faithfully visit and remain as best as allowed by the Ministry to see after the care of their children?
Would abusers continue their quest for three years?
The Baynes actions speak volumes to me. These are people who love their children. People who love their children do not abuse them but accidents happen every single day.
Reader from NYC
YOU NEED TO WATCH THESE VIDEO NEWS ITEMS ABOVE, WHICH WHILE USA BASED, ARE YET FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF GOVERNMENT'S INABILITY TO CARE FOR CHILDREN WITHOUT DESTROYING FAMILIES OR THE CHILD.
ReplyDeleteIt is also possible that a parent could shake or injure their child out of extreme pressure and stress for whatever reason, they then could feel very terribly about it right after it happened. And they may be in a position mentally where they can not afford to lose what they love. Family,extended family and friends, jobs. Someones whole world really. It has happened before, it is a possibility. Guilt is also powerful and could be reason enough to let your home go, faithfully visit your children, and to continue your quest. As ugly as it is, it IS possible.
ReplyDeleteWell 5:52 PM to be fair, your hypothesis of guilt does provide the balance to the 3:02 PM scenario of innocence in explaining why someone like the Baynes might dedicate such a level of commitment at all costs to recover a lost family. Why did you offer that option I wonder.
ReplyDeleteGuilt ain't that powerful. Anon 5:52, wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion.
Reader from NYC
Addendum. Hope you don't mind my use of the word ain't. I really only use it when I want to make a particular point.
ReplyDeleteI am, actually, rather well educated.
Reader from NYC
If anything it seems that Finn is doing a better job of sinking the case than winning it. He has used so many variations of false arguments I won't even begin to list them. I will point out though that his argument that the experts hired by the Baynes are guilty of selection bias quite possibly opens him up to a libel suit for defamation of character. Finally I think this quote sums up Finn's behaviour. "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." --- Richard Nixon.
ReplyDeleteChild Protection Exposed -
ReplyDelete"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." --- Richard Nixon.
Ha! That was a good one, and brought a smile.
Mr. Christie will likely not have to do an extensive reply to Finn's long winded closing argument. All he has to do is listen for what this fellow does NOT say, and then fill in the blanks that are large enough to drive a bus through.
ReplyDeleteThere is but a single incident in dispute. On this point, both sides agree there is a single occurrence of impact OR baby shaking. The Ministry refuses to give the Baynes an ounce of credit for their explanation.
Yet, MCFD returned the boys without the Baynes having to do a psychological assessment or a parenting course. MCFD returned the boys out of the goodness of their heart (not because the RCMP refused file an assault charge). The parents spend a whole month with their boys without incident.
MCFD removed the boys after the Baynes went public, but there was no physical danger that justified this. Again, another very simple cause and effect observation. MCFD had a tantrum, and it's lasted three years so far.
This case really is very simple. If the Baynes did indeed shake their baby and concocted a plausible sounding excuse, MCFD made a conscious choice not the SLIGHTEST effort to investigate, which is their JOB. They did not stray outside Dr. Colbourne's opinion because they were afraid of coming across ANY positive information that they would be forced to include into their investigative intake reports. Anyone that supplied positive information would become witnesses against MCFD.
For example, it is a simple matter to get MSP records that lists all charges of doctor care since the birth of the children. MCFD does this all the time, however I do not recall seeing this as part of the submitted evidence.
For MCFD to possess positive evidence of due care and attention simply would not do. Instead, MCFD came up with "munchausen's by proxy" and had the Hoffman's spout that nonsense to the police in a failed attempt to stack the deck against the family.
I could see in Mr. Christie's summation he could barely contain himself from openly displaying his disgust at the process he had unwittingly become involved in. Finn and his ilk are making a mockery of law and due process.
God help us if Finn Jensen eventually is selected to become a judge. The question arises how many judges on the bench did exactly what Finn Jensen is doing now.
Even if the Baynes were charged with assault, they would likely be told to attend parenting courses and get a psychological assessment, be redeemed, and get their children back in less time than the three years MCFD is taking just to bring the matter to trial.
MCFD failed to provide any plausible sounding story for the source of stress that would cause one or both parents to suddenly "lose it" for a moment and injure their child. MCFD lost the right to create such a background when they refused to interview anyone the Baynes came into contact with. The Hoffman's were useless in this regard because all they reported was the care of the children was entirely appropriate.
If Judge Crabtree returns the children, he indicts the child protection system, and the public may have confidence in the system and in him as the new Provincial Chief Justice. However, MCFD and other Provinces will still do the same thing to other parents, they will just take better care against the people they target, that they do not have any social support structure or finances to draw on.
If Judge Crabtree buckles, and gives any concession to MCFD, this will serve to validate their nefarious process. Parents will fear MCFD more, but they will remember, and repeat the Baynes story. Anger at MCFD and child protection in general will continue to grow until it eventually buckles like the Residential Schools scandal did.
Don't give in to Finn's application for altering visitation times. Judge Crabtree ADDED a day, from 2 to 3 days. MCFD wants to SUBTRACT a day, and go back to the original 2 days. If MCFD wanted to appeal the decision, they should have done so.
ReplyDeleteWhat bonehead came up with this application when the final decision is only a few weeks away? Did MCFD even bother to ask the Baynes for such concessions first before telling them they would file an application?
Make sure discussion of the visitation application comes AFTER Finn's final argument is completed.
Do not fall into Finn's trap of "getting this small matter out of the way first," and then discover his 2-1/2 hour estimate of time is used up with this application, and he then complains he needs MORE time to finish.
If I am not mistaken, the current 3-day visitation each would be reduced to one 4-hour weekday, and Saturday bumped up from 4 to a 6 hours. A net loss of 2 hours and a point of contact. Do they get phone or webcam access to make up for this? If there is a loss of hours, refuse it, because this is in essence a sideways attempt at appealing Judge Crabree's order.
This change sounds to me like it conveniences the foster parents and visitation agency reducing, not the children or the Baynes. If MCFD is offering the occasional long visit on a weekend, great, MCFD can offer it without going to court. I'm sure the family could use the extra time to go to a beach any other place farther away.
What would MCFD do with that weekday that was freed up? Why, another parent would get that valuable weekday time. MCFD would be free to schedule "activities" the Baynes have no say in, or perhaps a new therapy regime MCFD would demand the Baynes continue taking their children to, presuming Finn expects to lose and the children to be returned. MCFD has been at this game a long time, they have something up their sleeve.
Thankyou to the Baynes family for staying in the public light, for sticking it out and letting us all see and know first hand what monsters you are dealing with so.
To 12:19 AM Anon
ReplyDeleteAs I recall the recommended visitation discussion, they presently have 3 days at 3 hours each = 9 hrs.
The Ministry wants to change it to 1 day at 3 hrs and 6 hours on Saturday = 9 hrs.
MCFD makes this request based on the children's schedules, which it says is full with school and some outside activity. That schedule has been provided to the Baynes and appears to reveal ample free time to accommodate 3 days. It may have to do with inconvenience to the foster household and the supervisor. Having 6 hrs free on Saturday might be welcomed by the Foster parent.
MCFD did speak with the Baynes about the visitation change before the last court date but only to say that it would come as an application to the Judge. In any case, the Baynes have committed to run all such overtures by their counsel first. A change of anything that requires a ruling at this juncture in the case proceedings is assured to warrant more court time and further delay in a final ruling, so as some writers say, further withholding of children and greater revenue generation for some people.
If things go as they were sketched out in court, on Friday the the 31st, Jensen will complete his summation beginning a 10AM and in the afternoon, both Jensen and Bayne will have 30 minutes to speak to the visitation application.
To 12:03 AM Anon
ReplyDeleteYou have made some valid observations with regard to MCFD's return of boys in 2008 as well as their recapture and its motivation. Mr. Christie was indeed incensed by the process and by Mr. Jensen's tactic that afternoon. I suppose my blog posts have not agreed with you that Jensen makes a mockery of the law but rather uses the law to accomplish his client's goals and in so doing shows the weakness or failings of the law in some instances. The growing international mountain of evidence of Child Protection injustice to families is already scandalous and perhaps you are correct that a Mt. St. Helen's may occur at some level.
PS everyone - the summation conclusion is scheduled for Thursday, September 30th 10 AM
ReplyDelete