Second Part – Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association Dinner, October 24, 2010 Vancouver
“This case of the Province of BC Ministry of Children against Paul and Zabeth Bayne is waiting for a ruling by Judge Thomas Crabtree. The Baynes were in court since January to contest the application by the Ministry to keep their children forever. It's a Continuing Care Order. It means the children would remain in the care of the Province indefinitely, and that means possibly until the age of majority, age 19, and possibly adoption to another family. The Fraser Valley Region of the Ministry took this position that Paul and Zabeth continue to be a risk and that they should not have their children returned. MCFD holds that position in spite of the fact that Police dropped all charges of abuse and in spite of the fact that there is no actual evidence of danger or risk. They hold that position solely because Paul and Zabeth Bayne have refused to admit to harming their infant daughter whom a medical opinion said was the subject of shaking and trauma. The Ministry took the majority of the court time to prove how unfit Paul and Zabeth are to be parents. It had to embellish and stretch the truth throughout this trial. Many of us do not believe that the Ministry proved its case. All that matters now is that Judge Thomas Crabtree also concludes that the Ministry did not prove this and that it is in the best interests of these children to be returned to their parents.As I concluded, with Paul and Zabeth embracing in tears where they sat, six hundred people stood to give them a standing O.
How anyone could think otherwise is beyond my understanding. One of the special considerations favouring the Baynes that judge Crabtree has recently made in court was to permit one of the visitation days each week when Paul and Zabeth can see their children, to actually take place in the Baynes' own home. So for the past few Saturdays, all three children are brought to the Bayne home where each child is loved, loved, loved. They have six hours on a Saturday. The two boys have a shared bedroom where during the day if they choose to have a nap they can go there. These boys remember some toys and blankets from that brief time they spent with their mommy and daddy in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Baynes' small daughter has a room of her own with everything girly and fun. And there is a giant playroom for everyone and a large yard in which to play. And always these visitations are carried on with a supervisor present to monitor everything that is done. That supervisor cannot help but see how much these children love to be in their home.
That home is a rental house. You will remember that Paul and Zabeth lost their own home to pay for legal expenses in the early stages of this three year old struggle to regain their children. And Zabeth is a concert pianist and plays beautiful music and taught piano lessons but she had to sell her grand piano to pay for other legal expenses. They have exhausted all that they have in order to restore their family to a functioning and happy family once again. Paul and Zabeth deserve the right and the privilege of raising their three children into adulthood, instilling into their lives the values and principles and skills that will make them contributing members of society and contributing disciples of God's Kingdom.
In his closing summation, Baynes' lawyer Doug Christie told the Judge that the Ministry failed to prove its case. He said that this was purely a medical matter. It pertained to injuries sustained by their youngest child, an infant at the time. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Baynes. There was no confession by the Baynes. There was nothing to which the Ministry could point to prove that these parents willfully inflicted harm to their child and that is the only reason that these children should be removed from their parents. All that the Ministry has is a diagnostic opinion by a pediatrician who identified the injuries as shaken baby when there is no evidence that these injuries were the result of an act of violence. In fact it was later acknowledged by that doctor that the injuries indicated impact which of course is consistent with the explanation provided by the Baynes of an accident in the home when a sibling brother fell upon the baby.
Within days the Baynes will receive the transcript of the Ministry lawyer's closing summation and then Mr. Doug Christie will prepare a rebuttal and submit it to Judge Crabtree. The Judge wants to make a ruling as soon as possible, and he will take a few weeks, and hopefully make his ruling before the end of this year 2010. The very best scenario would be for Kent and Baden and Bethany to be returned home unconditionally for Christmas Eve and Christmas Morning, so that Paul and Zabeth can rejoice that unto them their children have been given.
Photo from the Bayne Facebook page
All of you who pray, please continue to pray for this family, and particularly Paul and Zabeth who wait so patiently.”
To Ron:
ReplyDeletePlease be advised that MCFD can remove and hold children until 19, not 18.
I further suggest that you put more emphasis on the tactics used on the Baynes like using their children as pawns to force them into admitting guilt, stalling the legal process to delay hearing, retaliating by re-removing their boys when they went public on Global TV and how such oppressive activities harm children and destroy families.
You should also indicate who the real beneficiaries of the "child protection" industry are and how taxpayers are ripped off under the pretext of "child protection". Link your speech to the HST, a tax that Gordon Campbell said that is needed to maintain our social services, including this pathetic "child protection" service of course. Talk about the tax burden not only to finance these barbaric activities but to deal with the aftermath (like wrongful death lawsuits and problematic removed children when they reach adulthood) created by state-sponsored child removal.
Since a good portion of your audience is Chinese and many are immigrants, you have to understand that they came to Canada to pursue a safer and better future for their children, to be oppressed by having them removed. Correct the wrong attitude that parents must have done something wrong if their children are removed by MCFD. Google to find out more on situations that children can be removed when parents do nothing wrong and share them.
Many of them, like many local born Canadians, have a blind faith in our elected government and our judiciary and presume that they are infallible. Correct this presumption and discuss how child removal seriously challenges our freedom, human rights, civil liberty and natural justice.
There are plenty of empirical data on the foregoing available on-line if you need to substantiate yourself.
I look forward to hearing a successful speech from you that will echo in the hearts and minds of your audience.
1:50 AM Anon
ReplyDeleteThank you for the age correction. It's been corrected.
One of the benefits of this Comment section is the opportunity to underscore or accentuate blog points. Your comment did that today. In 349 posts over the past year most of your details have been stated, so your reminder is helpful. You will appreciate that not everything that can be said, will be said in one brief speech. Your advice using “you should” to preface each statement intimates that the bulk of your remarks are directed at me which I suspect is not the case but that rather, you are using that as a literary ploy to guide other readers. Otherwise, you should be aware that in 'church' parlance, you are “preaching to the converted.” Good observation about the Chinese immigrant expectation and their subsequent disillusionment in Canada which explains their protestation over injustice. Far too many Caucasians want to be politically correct and courteous so we sit on our hands and duct tape our mouths.
It would appear the speech did echo in the minds and hearts of the audience members present. One cannot cross the line of appearing fanatic or overly anti-MCFD without the danger of being perceived as being against child protection generally.
ReplyDeleteThe complacency of the average Canadian does indeed open them up to being slaughtered like sheep in a pen, figuratively speaking.
My interpretation of the speech was that it was very well balanced for that particular occassion. Adding too much detail about the various tactics to against the Baynes to further educate attendees this type government activity is not at all uncommon has the danger of undermining the message. One does need to tread carefully, have have the skill and experience to read the audience.
If the audience is predominently Chinese, what would further drive home the danger that exists to their community is by citing the many stories that have occurred within their community. This is, in fact, a valid mechanism of counter-attack, addressing large affected communities. MCFD would prefer the families they affect, stand alone.
Citing statistics that support how common such MCFD tactics are would certainly lend impact to support the Family Alliance group objectives. Their efforts would obviously be used to support like-minded politicians that would be willing to go after the CFCSA. It is a multi-billion dollar industry they are going after.
I might wonder that because the Chinese community might be perceived more cohesive as a group and can draw on such support, MCFD stays away from certain ethnic and cultural communities for fear of such publicity, group backlash and an expensive fight. Statistics would reveal this if there were more checkboxes on intake reports other than "aboriginal" this theory would be better examined.
Hearing that the transcripts are STILL not ready is a concern with respect to expecting a Christmas return, as the Judge's estimate of his ruling was 8-12 weeks. We have already passed the minimum time, and Mr. Christie has yet to examine and respond.
However, children can have their own lawyer and their opinion counts after age 12. I am seeing how this will go in my case. Does anyone have any stories of teenagers being returned?
ReplyDeleteRon:
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome. I believe that you do have enough time to cover all the points suggested with emphasis on the corruption of the industry and the negative impacts on society if you are brief (ie. not going into too much details).
You will not be preaching to the choir. People might have heard that there are problems in MCFD. Many of them believe that the problems are due to insufficient resources given to MCFD (which is precisely what special interests want the public to believe). Few people know that it is so corrupt to this extent unless they experience "services" themselves. If there is media presence, they need to be educated. Be mindful that few people read your whole blog and remember. It won't hurt to briefly reiterate.
Saving the Bayne's children will not solve the problem from a macro perspective. This is a difficult, dangerous and righteous struggle against a formidable oppressive power.
In your reply to a blogger from Toronto on October 22, 2010 (Part 344), you agreed that:
"The only way to protect families and children is to revoke child removal authority by killing CFCSA and enshrining child custody as a charter right."
Make sure that you articulate this near the end of your speech.
"A single spark can start a prairie fire." Use this, most of your Chinese audience will understand where this quotation comes from.
"Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." (Psalms 127:1). This gives a final touch reflecting our strength and determination from our mutual faith.
That's an interesting observation or speculation i.e. MCFD steering clear of Chinese community because of adverse publicity that it will generate... I don't know the comparative stats.
ReplyDeleteTranscripts: I doubt that Crabtree needs 12 weeks. I believe he wants to expedite this thing. As soon as Baynes' team gets him their rebuttal this conclusion will be written.
Cheer them on as they put all their skills to answering Finn Jensen's summation.
Why would the transcript take so long? A transcript can be ready in a couple of days, or sooner, normally.
ReplyDelete10:17 AM Anon
ReplyDeleteI have no knowledge of how that part of the system works.
Today's blog was AWESOME Ron! SO many people are aware of this case, and they are praying and waiting for good news.
ReplyDeleteTranscripts for Mr. Jensen's 3-day oratory would number in the dozens of pages, if not exceeding 3-digits. I've waited for a month for shorter transcripts. Rarely have I gotten a transcript back in a few days.
ReplyDeleteA "Rush" can be put on transcript requests, but this can double the cost. I would wonder who put the order in, what transcription company was used, and was the tape marked "Rush."
3:03 OM Anon
ReplyDeleteIn this case the transcript was special ordered by Judge Crabtree for the Baynes, along with his own transcript, so it was expedited. We are pleased about that.
With regards to ethnic groups and MCFD, one parent reported MCFD became quite upset when the parent talked to their child in Chinese. "Talk in English, so we can hear," they said.
ReplyDeleteSince children are often MCFD's "evidence" but visitation and contact must be allowed during litigation, MCFD needs to prevent parents from coaching their children and getting information from the children as to what the social worker and foster parents tell them.
I'm told McEachern & Co. is a home business based in Burnaby that is the single agency that handles all of B.C.'s Provincial Court transcripts. This is a house, a home-based business. This might explain the multi-week delay on a job marked "rush."
ReplyDelete11:59 PM Oct 28 Anon
ReplyDeleteI cannot confirm that McEachern is the sole transcript production company but concur that delay may be attributable to overload of orders if it is. I have no idea about normal turn around time.
Ratio "audio to transcript" is 1:8 (1 hour audio to 8 hours of transcription work)
ReplyDeleteThanks 2:57 PM
ReplyDelete