Given our Canadian Rights and Freedoms, a miscarriage of justice within our Canadian legal and social context is essentially the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he/she did not commit. Synonymous with miscarriage of justice is the term 'wrongful conviction' which refers to conviction reached in an unfair and disputed trial. Occasionally the biased term 'travesty of justice' is applied to an offensive and deliberate miscarriage of justice
There are avenues by which to quash or overturn a wrongful conviction but these are difficult to navigate and achieve. We all agree that the most grievous cases are wrongful convictions that are not overturned for many years or before the convicted but innocent person dies by execution or natural death while incarcerated. But here we are discussing not a criminal but a civil matter, a child protection issue, where the suspicion card is played as strategically and effectively as the evidence card. The suspicion card is an incredible card because it permits the player to proceed directly to the goal without passing GO and yet collects thousands of dollars en route. That's what has happened to date. Now however, the court case required the player to present the suspicion so convincingly that suspicion should be regarded as equivalent to evidence. Circumstantial is to be regarded as actual. What a leap! What an hypothesis! What fertile ground for ---------MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
In the case of the Baynes what we have is not a conviction at all because there have been no legal criminal charges brought against the Baynes. So, no, they have not been wrongfully convicted. Yet a penalty has been imposed already, not only upon a mom and dad who are suspected by the Ministry of Children of harming their youngest child, but also upon the three children whom we all would concur are truly innocent. October 22nd is quickly approaching, the date that marks the removal of the children in 2007. This family has been enduring this penalty, surviving somehow, for the past almost three years.
How Mss. Polak and Dutoit cannot be concerned, or troubled, perhaps appalled, intelligibly sickened by the injustice of this aspect of their Ministry operations I fail to understand. At least be attentive to it. Forget that this case has been before the court since January. There was ample time before the actual court date for a top level intervention, some kind of compassionate involvement to second-guess and inquire into the case handling by the Fraser Valley Region of the Provincial MCFD mandate.
Let's suppose that the Judge's ruling does not move in favour of the Baynes. The children remain in provincial foster care. Let's suppose it proceeds beyond that to the adoption of the children.
Years in care can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the maturing child becoming an adolescent and an adult. In a case such as the Baynes, a CCO (Continuing Care Order) with its potential for adopting the child to new adoptive parents, the child will never have cause to believe that one or more parent did not abuse her when she was an infant. Their reputations will never have been officially untarnished. She may want nothing to do with her birth parents when she is of age to find them. Her sibling brothers may or may not be adopted with her. The sibling relationship will be effectively severed. And the boys if they remain together may always wonder why the parents with whom they could not live for three years but who visited them faithfully during those three years dropped out of sight and didn't visit any longer. And Paul and Zabeth, fifteen and twenty years from now will be moving out of middle age with hearts wounded irreparably and with lives scarred deeply because the children who were their life, have never been a part of it.
Judge Crabtree must decide against the Continuing Care Order, forget the Last Chance Order/Temporary Care Order, or any other option that credits the MCFD with any credibility whatsoever. Allow the children to return to their parents. It is the right thing to do. It is IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN!
This family has been through ENOUGH!!! Time for the Baynes' to re-unite for Good! MCFD has had control for far too long. The best interests of the children are to return to their parents,...that is so obvious when they spend time with them. Forget the MCFD's involvement in ANY way in the future, time to leave this family Alone! I thought their job was to bring families back together. I haven't seen any attempt at that at all in regards to the Baynes'
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhere, From whom did you hear or read that Ms. Polak made this comment please?
ReplyDeleteOnce the tide of public opinion starts to turn - and there is evidence it has already started to turn - it will turn swiftly. And the tide of public opinion can never be in favour of MCFD once the truth is known. MCFD knows this; that is why they lie, and desperately work to cover their lies.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening now with child protection can be compared with what happened a number of years ago with persons falsely accused of murder, serving time on death row. No one used to care about them, either. However, they now have many powerful, resourceful advocates, who are actively seeking, and obtaining, their release.
The work of this group of lawyers and concerned citizens is known as The Innocence Project:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
What we need is something similar. And it's only a matter of time before we get it. It's only a matter of time before lawyers and citizens with a conscience organize and fight back, en masse. Corrupt child protection agencies all over the world will then swiftly be exposed. The truth will out. It always does.
Entitlement to Compensation - The Legal Framework
ReplyDeletehttp://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/truscott/section5.asp
(NB: I wouldn't necessarily conclude that this government website was the be-all and end-all with respect to compensation).
Ron; there is some reason to rejoice today. The Baynes had a wonderful family Thanksgiving in their own home, with everything just as it should be. The kids were so happy and the parents and grandparents overjoyed. There is a sadness in knowing that these few hours of family happiness must soon come to an end and there is always the lurking fear that the director will succeed in his quest to destroy this family.
ReplyDeleteOne of your bloggers mentions the matter of the director claiming that the Baynes do not "co-operate" with the ministry. The matter of co-operation has come up a few times lately. When the Baynes insist on written communication, the director says that they are not working with the minsistry--they are not co-operating. Well co-operation is like "the best interests of the children" or other terms. It all depends on who is defining the word. The best interests of the children turns out to be snatching them from relative care and moving to three different foster homes. The Baynes did a terrible thing to their children. They invaded their privacy!!! Can you imagine how bad that made the children feel? Much kinder to move them from pillar to post. In other words the best interests of the children are defined by whatever the director feels like doing.
In the same way co-operation means doing whatever the director wants. It is a one way street. When the lamb runs from the wolf he is not being co-operative. Work with me, trust me and another thing I do not like the tone of your bleating, so cut it out. When former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev was asked about his relationship with Stalin he said. "When Stalin said jump, I jumped." That was co-operation Soviet style and also MCFD style. The director has no concept that co-operation should be a two way process. For three years he has done everything to thwart the Baynes. He has made it as difficult as possible to complete the case. He has stacked the trial with so many witnesses that it has taken years to complete and he has bankrupted the Baynes in the process.
For years access has been stringently controlled and when the Baynes wanted more access, he fought them tooth and nail. It was only on court order that he gave them more. The Baynes could have had the last Thanksgiving in the family home of the director had been co-operative. Once more he had to be ordered by the judge to give the Baynes choice of venue. Only recently he has threatened the Baynes with losing their children again and warning them that they could lose the next child if they do not "co-operate". When I write to the Baynes and tell them that on the track record, they simply cannot trust these people, he comments on the tone of my letter. What sort of tone should I adopt in the face of outrageous persecution? Please give me guidance someone.
Co-operation is an opinion, a perception. Facts are not. Fact is the Bayne family has been disrupted for three years. Fact is the ministry has repeatedly done all it can to make the trial as long and miserable as possible. Just look at the last few weeks. The judge wanted things done by August 13th. Doug Christie made sure he finisthed on that day. Then the director stretched it to Sept 21st. Then the 30th. Then reluctantly concluded on October 6th. They stretched it for another 8 weeks on their summary. It goes another month yet, so they have ensured a thre month delay. That is as much as the limit on a temporary order.
Who is the one who is not co-operating? Do tell.
Anon 10:54 AM wrote the following. A small editorial change was made so it could be shared this way.
ReplyDelete"You ask why Mss. Polak and DuToit cannot be concerned, or troubled, perhaps appalled....." People at the top say "that the Baynes are uncooperative with the MCFD!! So there you are, yet again, with a mindset in the top ministry people which requires admission of guilt to a crime not committed. They share a rationalle that is identifiable with those who have unaccountable power to wield and a place to swing their machete, seems to me. From what I have read, it is the attitude of bullies in similar places of power around the world. With our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is possible, with money and lots of time, to eventually change the MCFD to something akin to legitimate in conduct. I suppose some would even say it is our Canadian responsibility to specifically define law from this Charter!"
Thanks Bernice for you know what..........
ReplyDeleteRay Ferris, well said at October 12, 2010 5:56 PM!!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you for so perfectly expressing the indignation that so many of us feel.
MCFD - give the children back, now!