Yesterday, Friday, Judge Crabtree delivered his video conferenced ruling on the MCFD application to adjust the earlier court ordered three day visitation schedule of three hours each, to a schedule of one three hour visit plus a six hour visit on Saturday and this to accommodate the children's school life, extra curricular activities and appointments. There was more to this application but this was the primary item. Dear brave Zabeth, spoke on behalf of her husband and herself and her three children while the MCFD Director had his counsel Finn Jensen representing MCFD interests when they made their brief 30 minute presentations on Thursday afternoon.
On Friday Judge Crabtree told the Baynes and the MCFD representatives that he had reviewed both submissions with regard to the application. He made it clear that his ruling Friday is based solely upon those submissions on Thursday and unrelated to the general court hearing. His ruling on Friday was not based upon an any assessment of the court evidence to date. He wanted that understood. He is very aware that Mr. Jensen has another half day of summary on October 6th and no decision on the CCO has been made until the summary concludes and the Bayne counsel writes a closing statement in response to the Jensen summary.
Judge Crabtree recognizes that his previous visitation order was based upon a summer schedule and that now during the school year there has been an increase in the children's activities as well as social engagements and medical appointments. He notes that MCFD identifies some behavioral issues with a couple of the children and he acknowledges that some of this is plainly the result of being removed from their home for such a long period of time and this is being resolved by this hearing now.
Judge Crabtree therefore granted the MCFD request for two days access rather than three days, thus interfering with frequency. However, the total of nine hours of visitation remains intact. He did not grant the Bayne request for unsupervised visitation but what he did give the Baynes was the possibility of having those six hours on Saturday in their own home. That means supervised visits in their own home, of course contingent upon an in home assessment which means that two social workers will come to their home to inspect the facilities. Special family events and occasions are to be accommodated as visitation opps as well.
This in home inspection is to happen before October 6th so that any resultant issues my be resolved by THE JUDGE on that day of THE CLOSING SUMMATION.
BUT BELIEVE ME I AM THRILLED THAT THE BAYNES HAVE THIS TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS VENUE.
To the Blog Reader: Some serious reservations arise for me with regard to six hours of visitation time in your own home with a note taking supervisor sitting in your space the entire time. Do some concerns come to your mind as well? Zabeth alluded in court this week to the difficulty they experience during visitation, to know how to respond appropriately to child behaviour that requires some correction or discipline when a supervisor is observing and recording. Will they be deemed too lenient or too severe? And then I wonder what kind of reporting results from a supervisor compelled to put in six hours at one time, weekly. Do the comments become more critical and condemning at the fourth, fifth and sixth hours? How stressful will it be for Paul and Zabeth to put in this kind of time under such intense scrutiny. It is abnormal and uncomfortable. Within six hours there are many potty breaks, snacks, meals, naps perhaps, outside play, inside play, gabbing, talking story reading and who knows what else. Will the supervisor be scolding them and warning them again not to speak of the past or the future or giving children hope or escorting them to the john? The children will be living for six hours among the toys and familiar items of their past family life. It will be natural even instinctive for a mom to make sure her daughter is okay in the bathroom. Is the supervisor under instruction by the Ministry workers to give the parents trouble, badger them, intimidate them and be alert to situations that can be used to verify their unfitness. I don't know. I am asking.
Allowing the enemy into the family home so that their children could come home for a visit subject to their assessment? What a humiliation that parents must take. Do parents realize how vulnerable they are when government has the power to remove your children at will?
ReplyDeleteBe aware of fault finding and further stalling by delaying in producing the home inspection report.
It is advisable to have friends present and video tape the home inspection.
To those who believe that child removal is NOT financially motivated, please watch what corruption Target 32 (Louisville TV news) discovered:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAnjp7OnxNM (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHw_kbsAZ6A (Part 2)
If you suck up too much non sense from service providers (current or ex), hear what removed children say about foster care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSU8qPl6bZo (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48O__pdGZs (Part 2)
Government's undue power to remove children must be revoked at all costs. This is the largest institutional risk to child safety.
To Commenter 12:53 AM and 3:12 AM, when do you sleep?
ReplyDeleteI have added an entire paragraph to today's blog post reflecting my own concerns about the in home inspection and the weekly 6 hour visitation at the Bayne residence. You echo these same concerns. I don't believe that friends are permitted. The grandparents are not being permitted to be at the six hour visit from what I understand. What's that about? It may be a good idea to have the video camera going for six hours and planted close to the supervisor to record all audio transmissions even if not visual images.
This comment makes me wish anonymous postings weren't allowed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
A home may be a mans castle but if there are children there that may need protection someone has to do something to protect them. Would you rather the children were removed then ask questions later? If you've got nothing to hide it shouldnt(sic) be a problem!! Its(sic) comments like yours that make me doubt the Baynes innocence.
October 1, 2010 11:28 PM
I take particular note of "may" in the first sentence and the entire second sentence. The use of the word "may" sounds a little too much like it was written by a Social Worker. The second sentence describes exactly what DOES happen all the time. If the reader hasn't figured that out by now then I would love to sell him some ocean front property in Saskatchewan. Finally, Anonymous can't really believe, "If you've got nothing to hide it shouldnt(sic) be a problem!!"
Again, I reiterate my offer for the land.
On to another topic. Actions to bring more awareness and hopefully more response include calling the media, calling your Member of Parliament(Provincial and Federal), adding blog posts such as these to your Facebook wall and most importantly - Tell your friends about outrages like this and let them know you want the system fixed.
Are we not forgetting that six hours of visitation in the home is what the Baynes wanted? They specifically requested it in their written submission. They were considering their previous experience of six hours in community venues and decided home was preferable. Remember also that the ministry was dead set against the home venue, because it would make the children aware of what home life could be like. This was a positive gain for the Baynes. Of course there will be some disadvantages, but it is the lesser evil.I suggest the stringent criticism of this situation is uncalled for in the light of the fact that it was the best availble choice, at least until next Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteIs this true what Ray Ferris writes above, that is, that the Baynes themselves actually wanted the six hour stretch?
Hello Anon 11:50 AM
ReplyDeleteRay is in touch with the Baynes as much and perhaps more than I am. He knows whereof he speaks. In this instance the qualifier you missed was "...in the home..."
I am sure they preferred the three days. However if the 6 hr on Sat was to be the order they wanted it in their home and made that request. Further, MCFD opposed a visit in the Baynes' own home so this concession by the Judge is a breakthrough.
Ron; I should fully qualify. The Baynes submitted a written response to the court in reply to the Ministry's request for a change of times. They listed their priorities. First was for overnight weekends unsupervised. Second was for Saturdays unsupervised. Third. They were willing to change to two visits, one at three hours and six hours on Saturday PROVIDED they could stipulate the venue and it would be in their home. I thought I had sent you a copy of it. If I did not I apologise and I will make amends.
ReplyDeleteA six hour "supervised" visit is problematic.
ReplyDeleteNo attorney I know would have agreed to same. Simply for the obvious reasons that Pastor Ron sets forth in this blog.
But this is what it is and we, all who support the Baynes, need to move forward with what we have.
Reader from NYC
The Baynes should have had supervised home visitation from the start over 2 years ago! CPS wanted Parental Alienation! The 2 Boys were not under any investigation and were to be returned until this went Public so that in itself proves something is very wrong with the CPS story?
ReplyDeleteIf the Baby was on the floor and another child playing should fall and hit into the other,It happens and it is called a mistake and its something that I do not think will happen again!
The Lawyers and Social Workers are making a killing with Overtime on this Case and trying to justify thier work,as they wouldnt want thier budget to shrink next year!
Its all about the Money,I feel 75% of these workers couldnt care less about which way this case goes as long as they have a job and a pay to look forward to! Just look at thier pay scale and perks that come with the position!
9:18 PM did you mean to say "unsupervised visits" in paragraph one, because supervised is what they have had for almost three years.
ReplyDeleteYour support with your remarks will be appreciated by the Baynes.
I think it is great the judge is now forcing MCFD to offer home visits. Why wasn’t this done in the beginning?
ReplyDeleteThis order sends a very strong message that the judge’s decision will be against supporting the Ministry's CCO. I’m sure he is getting tired of Finn’s tactics by now.
Having to also be forced to do a home visit study so quickly also has huge implications for other cases. MCFD often imposes several month’s waiting period for a “home study” to be completed. This usually entails employment of an expensive psychologist.
I suggest each parent wear an audio recorder. Use a third recorder in the room the social worker sits, such as the kitchen.
I never had a problem with accuracy of reports on my visits, rather, there were "omissions." I used reports as positive exhibits for me as examples of evidence that MCFD observed no concerns about my parenting.
An example of omission: There were two incidents of a child uttering a swear word in a van on the way to the visit. The worker recorded this, but didn't ask where the child picked up that word. By omission, insinuation was that I swore and that was were the words were picked up. This was submitted as evidence during a presentation hearing. I was not able to respond as it was supplied to me only the day before.
The second time it happened, many months later the worker did not record the event, as I asked the child where she heard that word (she was three and in care for several months by that time) and it was in daycare. Another child was swearing and that's where she picked up the word.
This is a perfect example of having a tape recorder on your person, if the social workers attempt to use an incident in court, I could then query why they did not document the second incident and pull out the recording as needed. The issue did not arise. The point is to be prepared.
The supervision worker would follow me around the house when the children changed rooms. I thought it was funny. She did not take notes during the visit or use a notepad. She spent a lot of time on her cell phone texting messages.
As I had nothing to hide, and confidently parented my children, there essentially was nothing negative to write down. The Presentation Hearing was the only place initial reports were used.
The children would on occassion cry and have temper tantrums, these were rare. If a judge were to read reports, these events also give insight into parenting abilities.
The bottom line is if there is no derogatory history in recorded visitations, expensive supervision should be dropped. Children should be dropped off, then picked up. The only criteria should be, are the children undamaged.
Despite the fact visits are uneventful, this doesn't stop the MCFD social worker from continually scheming to figure out ways of undermining the visits and looking for negatives.
The most common visit annoyance was them being late and cutting visits short. Some children missing visits due to MCFD-scheduled appointments. For one child, they would deliberately schedule activities that coincided with visits, so one of two days was often missed.
A page full of restrictions evolved throughout the months as a result of events. One example was while playing basketball with my boys, I stepped on one of their feet. The visitation worker wrote it down as if it was malicious and we were no longer allowed to play basketball after that.
The one thing supervision facilities cannot compete with is the fact the home is where all the memories are created and preserved in the form of pictures, art projects, kids having their own bedrooms they KNOW is for them
For the most part, MCFD is careful not to put on paper false information. They instead insinuate and expect readers and listeners to draw negative conclusions.
The Ministry expends extraordinary amounts of effort and costs on setting up stories that project negative probabilities. Supervision is but one aspect.
Excellent, and educational, post, Anon at October 3, 2010 10:02 AM. Thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteGoing by the body language of Team Leader Berhe Gulbot, he did not very happy at the ruling of Judge Crabtree anouncing the 6-hour Saturdays would be home visits.
ReplyDeleteBerhe looked down and shook his head.
You are up very late or very early New West. Did you mean to write, "...he did not look very happy...". I assume so. Don't bother answering.
ReplyDelete