IN ALL PROBABILITY

Talk about probability, try this. Yesterday I wrote this line and I “probably” sounded like an uninformed bumpkin - “What kind of society is it that will permit a government ministry and a judicial system to operate on the basis of probability rather than evidence?"

That means a line of thinking such as what follows: "We cannot prove that they did it, but they probably did." "We cannot prove they are a risk, but they probably are."

What kind of society? Our society. What was I thinking? It's integral to our code of law. Of course the Prosecution as it were, that is legal counsel Mr. Finn Jensen representing the Ministry of Children in the Bayne Case during its final day yesterday, employed probability as his primary weapon. He did that because he can. I know, I know that Jensen was not the Prosecution but in arguing his client's case for Continuing Care of Paul's and Zabeth's three children he essentially prosecuted them, not on the basis of evidence but of probability. More accurately he persecuted them.

Child protection proceedings are not criminal in nature so they are referred to as civil proceedings for which the standard of proof is a balance of probability.

Now that is 'probability' in reference to a court proceeding, but 'probability' is reason enough to remove someone's child without a court order. Here is one of B.C.'s statements: "A director may, without a court order, remove a child if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that the child needs protection and that the child's health or safety is in immediate danger, or no other less disruptive measure that is available is adequate to protect the child." And of course the Director did that and has held these children for three years now and this hearing is to keep the children permanently, because of … probability.

Probably the court case won't finish when we thought it would. I should have said that. Oh did I say yesterday was scheduled as the final day – oops! So sorry! Premature. Who was talking on Thursday? That's right, Mr. Finn Jensen. Did he finish? Oh NO! Can you recall that he said two weeks ago that he would need one half day (2.5 hours specifically), and he and the Baynes and the Judge agreed that would be enough, and then in one hour during the afternoon of that same day, both Finn and the Baynes would each have 30 minutes to speak to an application by the Ministry to change the time of the Baynes' visitation with their children? Yes. Well near noon yesterday, the judge sensing that there was much more ground to be covered asked Jensen once again how much time he would need. Jensen said one hour. Ohh, but following lunch Jensen told the judge he now needed another half day. Why shouldn't we be surprised? That's a reciprocal question. Likely Jensen wanted to stall because he wasn't ready for the discussion of the visitation application but the Judge did listen to that in the afternoon. The result is that today Friday October 1 at 1:10 PM the Judge will deliver his ruling on that matter by video conference at room 204 in the Courthouse.

So, yes on Wednesday October 6^th at 9:30 pm Jensen will have another half day because he has so much drivel to wade the judge through. And he will plow through all of the same twisted content and hypothetical, pathetical (this is a new word coined for this occasion) stretches of information and facts. And he will remind the judge as he did today, that he better not make a ruling or come to a conclusion before all of the evidence is presented and before him. I am confident Judge Crabtree knows this already and he also knows to what he has been listening these past two court days – an insult to the system of justice, a verbal assault upon two young parents.

I will tell you a few more nuggets tomorrow.