Sunday, November 21, 2010

DEMOCRACY AND CHILD PROTECTION / Part 374 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

We can knock the involvement of the Ministry of Children in the lives of families and parents but we had better understand the philosophy that drives it.

We appreciate and applaud the democracy in which we live. We therefore need to understand it. As democracy pertains to the welfare of children, parents possess substantial rights as well as responsibilities with regard to the care of their children. Yet we have opted within our democratic society to provide a safeguard to children whose parents cannot or will not provide them adequate care. The government also owns responsibility to insure that children's needs are met.

Autonomy does characterize parental rights to decide for their children with regard to educational opportunities, religious heritage, discipline, cultural and recreational activities. Yet within this freedom lies an awareness that when concerns arise about physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect, then the government by way of a mandated child protection agency may become involved with the family. Sometimes this involvement is voluntary, which is to say that the agency upon request offers parents support and counsel to more effectively care for their children, and this may include monitoring and accountability. Other times the agency's involvement with a family is involuntary and even unwelcome. Of course a child protection agency must protect children from parents whose conduct constitutes physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect, or failure to provide adequate care. It is never justifiable to interfere with a family merely because the agency believes it can do a better job of care or provide more developmental opportunities. Justification of involvement occurs only when the level of care received by children has fallen below a standard which no child in the country should experience.

The social worker's struggle and the parent's conflict arises from the vagueness of definitions for child abuse and neglect because this requires assessment by a particular worker as to what that minimal standard for care should be and whether or not these parents have missed it.

This is certainly one of the dilemmas of our child protection system.
What is occurring presently with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the repeated attempts by MCFD SWs to schedule a meeting to discuss the support and care of Paul and Zabeth Bayne's fourth and unborn child and Zabeth herself may be viewed technically as fulfilling the MCFD mandate. In light of the years of pain that MCFD involvement has delivered to the Baynes, these recent overtures might be interpreted as tantamount to harassment. Paul and Zabeth have always been trustworthy people. As young parents, they were responsibly caring for their three children before they were removed and under the gloomy forecast of the past three years have conducted themselves admirably well. While they wait now for news from Judge Crabtree as to whether they will be awarded custody of their three, they have characteristically prepared for their newborn. They are employed, have excellent medical support through family doctor and obstetrician, are registered at a hospital that is equipped with a special care nursery to handle deliveries 24 weeks and over, and they have the great benefit of incredible support from family and friends. Rather than playing by the book now, it would be advisable for MCFD to desist. It should be clear that confidence in MCFD motive and conduct is expended.


  1. These bullies need to be told in clear terms that their harrassment will not be tolerated.

    Is there an area of Paul & Zabeth's life that they don't think they have the right to involve themselves in? At what point can the Baynes tell MCFD and their social workers to mind their own business - it's one thing to be polite and cooperative, and quite another to be subjected to what are clearly attempts to harass and intimidate these parents.

    Any sane, decent person can see what is happening here; the more we learn about MCFD, the more they look like petty tyrants.

  2. What is happening to Paul and Zabeth's unborn child is way more destructive than petty tyrany. Its child abuse and neglect of the worst kind being perpetrated openly by the MCDF. This is a mother in delicate physical and mental health fighting almost insurmountable odds for survival. How could she possibly present otherwise? This mother has a history of premature high risk births. As family development specialists, MCFD is well aware that stress and strain felt by mothers during pregnancy puts the in-utero infant at significant risk of harm. The MCFD does not require cooperation of Paul and Zabeth to develop their apprehension plan. The birth centres and hospital protection teams will do it however they want, whenever they want. Paul and Zabeth should be well aware in advance that it would not be advisable to give birth at the accusing "medical facilities" that they have dealt with in the past. There is a culture within these facilities to stick to the original diagnosis and obstruct contradictory evidence from being obtained. I speak from experience.

  3. 'A petty tyrant is a tormentor.......Someone who either holds the power of life and death over warriors or simply annoys them to distraction.'--Don Juan

  4. If something happens to Zabeth or her unborn child, MCFD and all individuals involved should be held responsible. A criminal investigation should be done, if there is evidence to warrant such.

  5. That is interesting to hear MCFD is coming to the Baynes to offer up unspecified services at this late date.

    It is almost as if Judge Crabtree has notified the Ministry his decision will be to return the children because of lack of evidence, and the only way the Ministry will be able to save face is to see if they can get the Baynes to accept services so they can keep their unwelcome foot in the door.

    My understanding of the way MCFD services work is that any member of the family must be in a state of needing protection first in order to justify the delivery of services. This is MCFD's price of admission.

    Only if the family agrees, sort of like a voluntary supervision order, to continue existing services or start new services before the service file is closed, will MCFD continue to have a mandate to remain involved.

    The Baynes would do well to research the offerings of the Health Ministry to procure identical replacement services for their three children. Counselling, physio therapy, speech services, etc.

    The Baynes need to get MCFD out of their lives, and have their service file closed as quickly as possible. Otherwise MCFD will continue snooping into their private medical records and acting as if there is an open investigation, and eventually identify a concern worthy of another removal.

    This is a case of medical malpractice and coverup of monumental proportions. It is hard to know if MCFD is using the medical establishment, or the Children's Hospital is relying on MCFD as willing accomplices to protect their valuable doctors from a lawsuit.

    If the Baynes do not migrate services away from MCFD beforehand, there is a potential that the judge could declare the children not in need of protection, and the services they are currently receiving could be terminated.

    Similar to stopping insulin shots, MCFD could simply respond with a re-removal claiming the children are at risk because the children's needs are not being addressed.

    In MCFD's eyes, the Baynes could redeem themselves just before the court decision by cooperating and agreeing to _anything_ MCFD chooses to propose. Upon acceptance, MCFD will then continue to assume responsibility for administering services.

    Another line of thought I had is the Ministry may offer unsupervised access for Christmas if te Baynes agree to any service. MCFD will hold up their children like bait to see if the Baynes bite that hook.

    The appearance would then be that the Baynes are in effect agreeing their children need protective services, and it was ok for MCFD to be involved in the first place.

    At this point, the Bayens only need to sit back and wait. They should welcome the meetings, nod their heads and stay quiet and say simply, "lets wait for the decision from Judge Crabtree."

    The Baynes are well aware of what a newborn requires, and there is nothing the Ministry can provide that is not available from the medical and school system.

  6. I would think it would be a very bad idea for the Baynes to accept ANY help, monetary or otherwise, from this corrupt Ministry of Children and Family "Development".

    MCFD has no business even discussing the unborn child with the Baynes. It's none of their business. Justice is on the side of these parents, not MCFD. So MCFD can promise or pretend anything, but the bottom line is they don't have a leg to stand on. I agree that this is one last futile attempt to hook up the Baynes. Don't take the bait.

    And that goes for all families. No one should accept any services or funding etc. from this gang of thugs. Put them out of business.

  7. MCFD - a trojan horse if ever there was one.

  8. War criminals have been hunted down and prosecuted years - decades - after their crimes were committed. Do MCFD employees think that people, or society, will just forget? They could spend the rest of their lives - like war criminals - wondering when a massive government investigation was to be started. The paper trail, and the electronic trail, could be very incriminating, even decades after the fact. They may not realize it, but they are in a very, very precarious situation.

  9. As awareness about child protection corruption grows, and as more foster children age out of foster care and realize the injustice that they have been subject to, there will be more likelihood that society demands a massive investigation into the practices of MCFD. Why would anyone risk this - for a measley job or pathetic career?

    From MCFD case workers to lawyers, can't they get a decent job - do they have to work in such a pathetic organization? Don't they know that anything would be preferable to the work they do (and calling it "work" defames the term).

  10. Whether or not Paul and Zabeth utilize any segment of the proferred MCFD services, IMO, the MCFD will seek to use it against them. Another "darned if they do and darned if they don't" situation, no doubt.

    I agree that Paul and Zabeth need to have the various therapies required by the children lined up and available, so they can demonstrate to Judge Crabtree they are ready to fully resume care of their children. Those therapies have the potential to be expensive if not covered by our provincial health care.

    I consider myself one of their supporters and I have tremendous respect for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this entire ordeal.

    But I can't stop thinking that my own personal commitment to support Paul and Zabeth goes beyond following this blog, encouraging them and praying for them. I want to do more than just wish them well. I recognize that their financial expenses have been extraordinary and they have already lost everything they owned. They are working as hard as they can to provide for their family, but no doubt could use some help financially. I would like to help them with their bills, and there must be others reading this blog who feel the same. Ron, is there some sort of trust fund set up or anything else you know about which supporters could contribute to in order to help Paul and Zabeth? If there is, can you please post something on this blog to tell people how to help? Do you have any suggestions?


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