Sunday, November 28, 2010

WORLDWIDE CONCERN/ Part 381 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you were in any doubt about the clamouring international interest there is in the concerns about families and children and parental rights and freedoms involved with child welfare and child protection and removal and deaths while in care, Google any of the above but let me also tell you who it is who is reading this GPS blog. Even recently, people log on from Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany; Reading, United Kingdom; Lincoln, New Hampshire, United States; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Huntsville, Missouri, United States; Oaxaca, Mexico; Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Edison, New Jersey, United States; Forest Hills, New York, United States; Twickenham, Richmond Upon Thames, United Kingdom; Algiers, Alger, Algeria; Bonaventure, Quebec, Canada; Indonesia; Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada; Strasbourg, Alsace, France; Mumbai, Maharashtra, India; Sidney, British Columbia; Puerto La Cruz, Vargas, Venezuela; and of course in cities and towns across Canada and throughout British Columbia. Over 143,000 hits have registered and this is not a busy blog. It is however, an intelligible, rational approach and it acquires readers who want to be informed and who appreciate an opportunity to respond with a supportive, informative or corrective viewpoint.

People want to understand how a ministry intended at the start for such selfless and humane purposes can become so wrong-headed no matter where in the world it is practiced.

There is no question in my mind that those who are commissioned and employed to protect a district's children when parents or guardians are failing, are faced with distressing situations that can make them sick and angry. I would respond similarly. There are parents and step parents and grandparents and live-in partners who are prisoners of addictions or behavioural issues that lead them to be negligent custodians of children. And there are parents and others who are cruel and malicious by nature and intent. All of these people forfeit temporarily or forever any right to have children in their care. It is the way it should be. Do you think I have stated this too strongly? These children need a chance to live and to be all for which they have potential. Yet, terrible things happen to children in care too. What must virtuous social workers think and do in such situations? If a child protection agency will remove children for their safety, their alternate living condition must be close to a guaranteed perfect life situation. Such guarantees are not universally pursued - not in every district or region. I am convinced of that when foster parents can actually refuse to be registered yet be given children. Protection agencies informed of a risk situation but which do not act in time to save a child or, having acted to protect a child when a risk was suspected, they refuse to return the child even when no evidence of risk exists and when other evidence points to a return being in the child's best interest.

There is only one word that befits the realities – INCOMPETENCE. It is a universal child protection malaise.


  1. MCFD and other child protection agencies around the world might be relieved to know they were only deemed "incompetent." The truth is, they are more than incompetent; they are criminally negligent and consistently perform malicious acts, conspiring to deprive both children, parents, and families of the right to happiness and liberty.

    It has become obvious that child protective services all over the world take innocent, vulnerable, defenceless children from good, loving families, and then put those children with complete strangers, causing horrific trauma to the child and family, and all who care about the child and family.

    These children who are placed, against their will, with strangers, are - all too often - drugged, beaten, abused in every way, and murdered. Politicians and others have been aware of this for decades, and have done nothing, or worked to cover up, these crimes.

    Awareness of the corrupt and destructive nature of child protective services is spreading, and will only continue to spread. In years to come - if the history of the inevitable revelation of such awful crimes repeats itself - those who were guilty (and far too many employees of MCFD appear to be guilty), will be looked upon, universally, with contempt. They may even face harsh consequences. Stranger things have happened.

  2. Good news for the Baynes and all others whose Charter Rights have been violated:

    Top court upholds damages for charter breaches
    Last Updated: Friday, July 23, 2010

    | 4:24 PM ET Comments387Recommend186.

    CBC News

    The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld $5,000 in damages against British Columbia for breaching the charter rights of a Vancouver lawyer strip-searched by police who wrongly thought he was going to throw a pie at Jean Chr├ętien.

    However, in the unanimous landmark ruling Friday, the top court set aside damages of $100 against the City of Vancouver, stemming from the seizure of lawyer Cameron Ward's car.

    The ruling means that people whose rights have been infringed can seek damages even if they suffered no actual loss and even if the authorities acted in good faith.


    Read more:



  3. Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) Form
    The current risk assessment form used by MCFD in PDF format (34 pages) is located at:

    Readers should note this is not a 'searchable' form. I have not yet been able to find the document from an official source.

  4. I was laughing as I saw that the verification word that came up when posting the link to the CRA form was "manure."

  5. Moral incompetence is probably a better qualification. It is also an individually assigned attribute. You are deemed a radical if you paint an entire organization. or concept incompetent.

    "You abused your child. Fortunately the Ministry is incompetent, so you are not guilty." It doesn't work.

    When a child is removed and retained for years, and there are no visible or measurable parenting deficiencies, and facts proves this is an incorrect action, mere incompetence cannot explain away child protection decisions to remove and keep children in care.

    When parents are deemed incompetent, incompetent social workers have the upper hand.

    Many have said removals are financially motivated, yet there is no evidence in Canada (just in the U.S.)

    Job satisfaction is another explanation put forward. Child removal gives social workers a huge power kick.

    Residential school workers are example of nut cases drawn to jobs that allow them to hurt children.

    Consider what MCFD defines what is competent:

    Foster parents only need to take a week-long seminar to be considered qualified to care for any child of any age and condition. This course is a recent development. Previously, only a desire, a house, employment (now optional) and a criminal record check was required.

    Supervision workers become qualified to write notes after one day of training. Companies that employ these workers charge a minimum of $40/hr.

    Social workers can spend as little as 5-10 minutes with a parent, then spend an entire day writing a risk assessment and parental cooperation or input is optional.

    Parents are required, typically to take anger management courses, perhaps 10-15 hours over a 2-3 month period.

    "Intensive" parenting courses are inconveniently spread out over a 6-12 month period, and hour a week, THAT is deemed by MCFD sufficient to correct ANY concerns for a child's safety. One commenter claimed MCFD has an 80% success rate (ie. children are not later removed again from the same parents.)

    Social workers get their BSW degree, in, i believe 4 years of University. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but these people have the authority to remove children as soon as they are hired. This means they would have to know how to do a CRA, prepare serve and file court documents without a lawyer's assistance. They entry level wage is something on the order of $25.00 hourly.

    Police need only 6-months of basic training to become officers. Their entry level wage is likely similar to a social worker, and there are great early retirement benefits. Police produce better reports because the system is better structured is deals with higher volume.

    Psychologists might take 10-12 years to get the PhD in order to be qualified to become a court-recognized expert, and they have to have a proven track record of several years of writing parental capacity reports. They can charge up to about $250 an hour.

    Counsellors in intensive parenting programs are now required to have their Masters degree. These people are valued at anywhere from $35/hr to $75/hr.

    Free parenting programs and anger management courses parents may take I don't believe have any regulatory requirements. Government may reimburse the course presenters if attendance is proven.

    Given the above, all of the people that the Baynes have dealt with are entirely intellectually and skill-competent. These people are all still employed, and presumably writing the same type of risk assessments on dozens of parents with exactly the same level of "care and attention" the Baynes encountered.

    So, what we have here is that at least a veneer of competence exists. This gives child protection a base under which nefarious activities can occur without raising much alarm from the general public.

    In the meantime, blog contributors need to post more links of examples of abuse by child protection workers.

  6. MCFD and all these other child protective rackets think they are above the law and that they can get away with murder forever. What they fail to appreciate is we live in an era when dark secrets can be found and exposed with a click or two.

    The following story (which is all over the Internet) reveals how no agency, government or otherwise - no matter how top secret they think their information is - can be certain that their secrets will not be exposed:
    WikiLeaks shows 21st-century secrets harder to keep

  7. Table 2.1: Children's Special Allowance Payments (CSA)

    Description of Transfer Payment Program:
    Tax-free monthly payments made to agencies and foster parents who are licensed by provincial or federal governments to provide for the care and education of children under the age of 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents. CSA payments are equivalent to Canada Child Tax Benefit payments. CSA payments are governed by the Children’s Special Allowances Act which provides that this allowance be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

    Total Expenditures: $1,529,508,000 to date including 2007-2008

    Forecast Spending
    2009 - 2010: 221,000 (in thousands of dollars)

    Planned Spending
    2010 - 2011: 225,000 (in thousands of dollars)

    Planned Spending
    2011 - 2012: 230,000 (in thousands of dollars)

    Planned Spending
    2012 - 2013: 234,000 (in thousands of dollars)


    CSA are non-taxable amounts paid monthly to an agency that
    cares for a child under 18 years of age who resides in Canada.
    A child is considered to be cared for by an agency if, at the end
    of the month, the child is dependent on it for his or her care,
    maintenance, education, training, and advancement to a greater
    extent than any other agency or individual....

    We usually make CSA payments to the agency that cares for the
    child. However, payments may be paid directly to a foster parent at
    the agency's request. In this situation, complete the "Foster parent
    information" section below....

    Jurisdictions have taken different approaches in allocating the CSA. Under the National Child Benefit, jurisdictions may choose to pass on any increase to the NCBS to child welfare authorities or recover the increase and allocate it to broader NCB reinvestment strategies to assist all low-income families. As a result some distribute all or part of the CSA directly to foster families.

    Others consider it part of their operating revenue and it becomes part of the foster care structure or special needs rates.

    In all jurisdictions, child welfare authorities allocate the CSA funds AS THEY SEE FIT.

    (emphasis added)


  8. Veneer of competence? Many of us can paint the story in true colour. Many of us can draw the lines in the sand. We know, whom did what, to whom...but who will listen? Why? We pay them to torture us. There is virtually no escape. When the Baynes walk out of that court room with their babes in their arms, raised in haliluah, will they know the truth? Will they know why their little girl was so sick after a normal childhood malady, like a simple incident of childhood misfortune? There was talk of an inborn error, medical complications of premature birth. Is there a safe, reliable, place for this mother to obtain a piece of mind for the health, and security of person of her prospective newborn? Will these parents ever be privy to that information? Will the siblings, adopted, or not be privy to that information? Do they have to rely on information provided by social services..that are clearly adversarial.. How many years must pass before the information catches up with them? Is Zabeth and Pauls families entitled to that information? Now? Later? Never? There is more at stake here than two parents, wanting to be with a few kids....there is a whole family, and suceeding generations to protect. What if years from now, these three children, in three seperate homes, have families...what will happen then? Pretty Bethany, Kent, Bayden..will they be sitting infront of the courts, held up by tortured loved ones...proclaiming their inocents? What if, just what if their babies present, medically similar to them or their parents? Who will protect them then? The advasaries? Not likely. What will they say say when asked for family liniage? What will the adoptive families say then? I paid cash and carry? If this Judge has any hart at all, he would allow the family automity. That is in the act. That is why it is in the act. In the very least he would not want to fob these infants off on unsuspecting adopters. Does this Judge trust the hospitals, and their "specialists" as much as Paul and Zabeth used too? Would he, knowing what he knows, give these kids up to his childless family and friends as healthy? And if he gives the babes back to the Baynes, how are they ever supposed to feel? When does advasarial approach become real child abuse? Does the court really believe that a spot of blood can never come to light? In a whole life time?

  9. This mention of CSA (Children's Special Allowance) is a very interesting post.

    The link to the page mentions a total of 56,255 children are in care in Canada (presumably aboriginal?) and 1.53 billion dollars are either paid directly to foster parents, or the provincial child protection authorities. This works out to $27,189. per child on average. Wow.

    Unless I miss my guess, for each child in care the Province would be paid double in federal dollars than the foster parents would get for a normal (non-special needs) child.

    Is this on top of MCFD's 1.3 billion dollar budget if no cost recovery figures are shown in the financials?

    Someone can certainly tell me if I'm off the mark here, but if half the 14,000 kids in care (foster and relative) that amounts to $190 million given to MCFD for their share of aboriginals.

    I would imagine if MCFD can get away with placing kids with relatives, they save quite a bit over foster care costs, and they get to keep the rest.
    I don't see this cost recovery listed in the budget numbers. Do bands manage their own affairs, and get paid from MCFD?

    I would say that some of these figures seems to translate fairly well into financial incentive to remove children.

    Looking at an MCFD page with the phrase "Children's Special Allowance" on the page, shows an old 2002 balance sheet, but I can't see this CSA portion.

    This is definitely worth further examination.

  10. Yes, I wish I were an accountant sometimes. Maybe someone with some accounting experience or whatnot can help us figure it out.

  11. It does seem like the court has spent too much time on whether or not baby B has SBS. In my case, the illness of my son was not abuse or neglect connected according to the second doctor, yet the first doctor thought it was. SO, MCFD took the first p.o.v. And now I have my son back, but what if he gets sick again? I tried to make the point it is not because I did not follow the medical advice.
    And MCFD has his records, I do not. So, it is still mysterious and we lost a year in finding out what is wrong. Will we ever know what is wrong?
    They claimed to know what is was and made me go to therapy as I was supposedly in 'denial'. Yet the problems were physical and another doctor thought brain stem connected or Wilson's. The first one said mental illness. I am scared to breathe a word that it is still not known what is wrong since I lost my kids over this.

  12. Today I was in 'FCPC'. The director stated that there are certain things that are non-negotiable. One is that all input from the involved doctors, teachers and therapists is not to be questioned and is not questioned by MCFD or the parents in FCPC.Or at any time.
    MCFD takes the opinion of the doctor who makes the protection complaint and they stick with it.
    It is a very easy way to file a lawsuit against a parent. A person gets their side represented for free by making a protection complaint. MCFD hires the lawyers and the person who complained has their identity completely protected. I saw this used by an ex-husband against his ex-wife in family court.
    Doctors do make errors and even good doctors have different medical opinions. If only the first opinion is taken into account and the parents are held to that when another doctor may say something totally different, that is so arbitrary, it is not sound.
    The same with schools. What if the teacher has a low opinion of your child? I went through this before. Then they keep telling bad reports even if the child is trying their hardest. MCFD follows the bad reports and does not consider other choices such as perhaps that is not the right teacher for that child.


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