Friday, October 29, 2010

SAFE AND RISK FREE / Part 351 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The transcripts have been delivered to the Baynes.
Within days their legal counsel will present a compelling refutation to Judge Thomas Crabtree. Upon reviewing all court reports including this last document, Justice Crabtree will deliver a ruling that will determine the future of a family. It will be a just ruling when he clearly discerns the truth. We are trusting that Mr. Crabtree will not be influenced by the name, education, position or reputation of the information source but rather, be passionate to distinguish truth regardless of who stated it. I have sometime commented on actions outside and inside court because that is all we can see. We cannot know motives despite the certainty with which some of my readers speculate.

Through this long ordeal Paul and Zabeth have exhibited tranquillity despite the accusations directed at them. That spontaneous deportment of peace and contentment is unsurprising from people whose consciences are pure. They will not be better people if Judge Crabtree awards them their own children. Nor are they unworthy parents because Finn Jensen told the Judge that they are. They are who they are. And for them, it matters that God sees them. Understandably their attention is on their own family and the outcome of Judge Crabtree's deliberations, but I can tell you this. When peace controls their futures, Paul and Zabeth are the kind of people who will speak peace to other sufferers.

Only love can lighten heavy burdens like this and Paul and Zabeth not only have love for each other but have an abundance of it from an army of people. All of that love helps to carry the heavy burden. They are fortunate that is true.
I assure you that both Paul and Zabeth have improved their lives during the past three years – not financially of course. Yet they have stared fear in the face and have battled for family and in that brave effort have attained skills and virtues they never considered before. Perhaps some of the greatest victories have already been won. When these children get their parents back, this will be one great family. Three children will have diligent and sincere parents like few others because they have already made progress in these important areas. These parents have lived peaceably while facing people who do not like them and have not cared for them and their three children will be entirely safe and risk free in their biological family home.

5 comments:

  1. Remarkable people, the Baynes.

    It's a constant uphill battle fighting these "child protectors." They now want to ramp up their Orwellian tactics:


    The EDI was developed on behalf of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which wanted to create a database about B.C. children, including where they live, grow up and learn

    Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/sports/Centre+targets+vulnerable+Strathcona+kids/3746159/story.html#ixzz13nFGLjg3

    ReplyDelete
  2. What was omitted in the 12-part early child learning series in the Province that featured Hertzman's work confirms in this Courier story that MCFD supplied his financing. Interesting.

    I didn't read all the Province newspaper series, but if this tidbit of information was missing, this is a pretty big, and deliberate journalistic omission. The scope of this newspaper project is quite remarkable, and lack of reader comments is noteworthy.

    It is interesting also to see the comment at the end of the story about it making more sense to have the Education Ministry receive the funding to teach younger children. This is a no brainer, so I suspect this "free" test case by MCFD "volunteers" is an attempt to jump the gun and convey MCFD is quite capable of early childhood education, as opposed to the Ministry of Education.

    Knowing how they work, MCFD would be more interested in finding "at risk" and high value "special needs" children to earmark them for future removal. They are NOT interested in "developing" these children with long term outcomes in mind. You can help the kids all they want, but if the parents are not included, it is guaranteed when the kids return to the chaos at home versus the happy school environment, kids will prefer school over home. Which, I imagine is what MCFD would want, because this agency thrives on family discord.

    NICCSS, mentioned in this story was the Ministry recommended supervision facility that I paid up front to have supervised Christmas visits. Each and every later visit arrangement attempt fell through. Nasty, nasty organization.

    RayCam is another familiar name. It sounds similar to other centres that provide low-end counsellors that deal with "children who witness abuse" programs. Camery center in New Westminster and some other similar facilities are referral agencies paid by MCFD that provide low-grade services for no-at-risk families.

    I get the impression a working demonstration model "done without government funding" is necessary as a teaser, or a working test model to get buy-in for later funding. If, as The Province series of articles suggests, there is a 1.5 billion dollar reward.

    It smells like MCFD is attempting to brew up something big.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can certain agree many aspects of the Baynes involvment in this sad case has strengthened them, in much the way that survivors of natural disasters or war are stronger. But the COST, in human suffering, financial, trust in government, long term outcomes of the children, attachment damage, these are damages that tax the strongest of people.

    I am convince the outcome of Baynes case is being watched by the highest levels of government; they have a vested interest in seeing the Baynes fail in court.

    Polak's mentions shaken baby syndrome as a top concern: "
    Creating greater awareness about the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy, establishing initiatives that warn parents about shaken baby syndrome, offering a full range of early dental, vision and hearing screening to identify developmental problems, and various early childhood programs that aim to improve literacy and language skills are just a few examples that ensure kids in this province have the best chance of being healthy and successful."

    http://www.theprovince.com/business/story.html?id=3536810
    ---
    Regarding the highly informative Courier link:
    It is interesting to note in The Province's massive writing project on children's development there is no mention of the Ministry of Children and Family Development as sponsors of Hertzman's EDI project.

    This phrase jumps out at me:
    "The EDI was developed on behalf of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which wanted to create a database about B.C. children, including where they live, grow up and learn. It also takes into account five areas of child development--language and cognitive development, emotional maturity, physical health and well-being, communication skills and general knowledge."

    Normally, the only way MCFD could get this information on just one child at a time would be on a laborious per-case basis triggered by a protection report.

    This way, larger numbers of children can be investigated and earmarked for later removal. MCFD's standard strategy is to first identify families at risk, wait for a certain number of intakes to come in, or there is a deterioration, or an "event" of sufficient magnitude to justify a removal.

    What MCFD can do with this is hone their removals to high-value special needs and younger children who also have high adoption potential.

    I note Polak's focus and screening and early intervention on one story, and in another, a somewhat lukewarm response to some of the Province's questions regarding which Ministry would oversee the suggested 1.5 billion dollar subsidized preschool/daycare programs.
    http://www.theprovince.com/news/growing-challenge/

    Also, Polak again is using the Province to promote http://www.strongsafesupported.com, where the site advertises MCFD will intervene and provide additional childcare support to parents only if they meet the prerequisite they are in need of protection.


    "Risk" is an MCFD watch word. Look at this definition of risk, for example:
    Low overall health and well-being: Children reported a low level in one of the five indicators of well-being (self-esteem,
    optimism, overall health, happiness and sadness).

    See the rest of this document it comes from http://www.theprovince.com/pdf/mdireport.pdf and Hertzman's name is also mentioned.

    The Courier story link has an observation that the Education Ministry would be more suited to taking care of children's early education needs than MCFD.

    MCFD doesn't care about children's development, they just want the data collected by whatever agency is assigned to collect damning information on families without the parent's or taxpayer's knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon at October 30, 2010 10:24 am.

    I agree with you. I also find this database plan very, very disturbing. I have also seen an article recently that is clearly intended to bolster the notion that child protectors are going to save us all from evil parents who shake their babies:


    http://www.vancouvermom.ca/events/purple-crying-call-for-knitters/

    (Sorry can't find original article, as there now appears to be a ton of links coming up when I put into Google "knitting shaken baby" - the original story that I saw was about social workers knitting baby hats to raise awareness of SBS). Looks like the idea has gone viral, judging from the number of links that now come up. MCFD is certainly effective at marketing their lies. No doubt they employ people just to do this on the Internet, or at least as part of their job.

    It is no coincidence that just at the end of this trial, this blitz of PR re: Shaken baby dangers is appearing. And as usual, the child protectors have painted themselves as loving, kind protectors, this time sitting around doing something very motherly and homey, knitting little soft baby caps. The manner in which they hide behind apparent good deeds is truly shocking, once you realize what they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anons, one and all, please check out the shocking publication, "15 by 15: Smart Family Policy:"

    Herztman is one of the authors of this outrageous publication that will probably very easily dupe politicians and others such as the United Way, with grand claims such as the following:

    "The stock of human capital in British Columbia is key to its long-term economic success.
    This means early child development is a critical issue for business leaders, because the
    years before age six set in motion factors that will determine the quality of the future
    labour force. Today, only 71% of BC children arrive at kindergarten meeting all of the
    developmental benchmarks they need to thrive both now and into the future: 29% are
    developmentally vulnerable."


    http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/research/initiatives/social-change/15-by-15-smart-family-policy/

    Here is an example of Hertzman's manipulation of government and business interests:

    "A rate of child vulnerability above 10% is
    biologically unnecessary. At three times
    what it could be, the current vulnerability
    rate signals that BC now tolerates
    an unnecessary brain drain that will
    dramatically deplete our future stock of
    human capital. The economic value of this loss is equivalent to investing $401.5 billion today at a rate of 3.5% interest, even after paying for the social investment required to reduce vulnerability. Unnecessary early vulnerability in BC is thus costing the provincial economy a sum of money that is 10 times the total provincial debt load."

    Hertzman then makes another leap in logic:

    "The implication is clear: governments, businesses, bankers and citizens have ten times as much reason to worry about the early child vulnerability debt as we have reason to worry
    about the fiscal debt. Reducing early vulnerability is therefore necessary for BC to secure its long-term economic future, while it will also inject a significant economic stimulus now."

    Pretty hard for politicians and businessmen to argue with that reasoning. Now the child protection industry has really become an industry. All they need now is a database. And of course, that is coming down the pipeline:

    "The EDI was developed on behalf of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which wanted to create a database about B.C. children, including where they live, grow up and learn. It also takes into account five areas of child development--language and cognitive development, emotional maturity, physical health and well-being, communication skills and general knowledge."



    Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/sports/Centre+targets+vulnerable+Strathcona+kids/3746159/story.html#ixzz13yoOG61s

    Parents everywhere should be very, very concerned about these latest developments.

    ReplyDelete

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise