Sunday, December 19, 2010

FOR WHAT DO WE STAND? / Part 403 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

In commenting about the CBC story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, one person wrote the following:
Julian Assange stands for.......


The USA stands for.........

Control over the people

Most of us are initially appalled to think that the last set of descriptives could be true of a free world democratic government. Nevertheless there are many people whose knowledge or personal experiences concur that these are apt identifiers for the USA. There are enough shockers happening inside our democracies to make us all nervous about the truth.

Based upon what many of you have written over the months it would seem that in your minds at least, that latter set of attributes are applicable to the Ministry of Children and Development in those localities where you live. You say that you have experienced Lies, Cover-ups, Authoritarianism, Injustice, Aggression, and Control over your lives.

That reputation is a heavy burden for well intentioned social workers.
I have the impression from social workers that their work today is like a mine field. They must vigilantly watch their steps with clients and supervisors.

Parents whose children have been apprehended inaccurately, mistakenly or unjustly are in Guantanamo Bay. Their lives have been detained. Freedoms curtailed. Resources diminished. Their children are under 'foster' arrest, customarily receiving acceptable care but experienced relationship deprivation. The children's still maleable lives are being shaped by events happening to them which they often cannot understand and which are beyond the control of the people who are most important to them.

Some of you have hinted at the ramifications possible if a Wikileaks kind of disclosure occurred with documents internal to MCFD regional offices or the offices of the suits and slacks in Victoria. But what would you want to come out of something like that? What kind of people are we? For what do we stand?


  1. To Ron:

    You asked on December 16, 2010 1:23 PM (Part 400):

    "You will be very disappointed if you think that balanced views are more acceptable," tell me, have you a better approach do you recommend?

    You are asking me to openly disclose methods, strategies and tactics when the enemy is reading and listening. Is it wise and shrewd?

    On December 16, 2010 6:28 AM (Part 399), you cited Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” So practice it.

    Watch the news. It may not be in your lifetime but certainly your children and grand children will see how people are fighting this oppression.

    To supporters of the Baynes, unless you want the enemy to know, do not discuss or suggest actions such as peaceful demonstration in the hospital in this site.

    Be mindful that the enemy is reading this site not to obtain information to do meaningful reform but to fish for information to further harm the Baynes and to prepare defence of their hideous activities in the future. Give them nothing and no place (Ephesians 4:27).

  2. To Alison:

    Your law professor who claimed that she has never seen MCFD re-removing children without fresh evidence is wrong. Tell her this. The fact that she has not seen one does not mean that there isn't.

    I have witnessed in several different cases that it has happened. These cases are not isolated incidents. Why the Bayne's boys were re-removed in their birthday party? What is the fresh evidence? The only thing new is the parents naively went to Global TV to air the injustice prematurely. Social parasites could not tolerate such embarrassment and retaliated with all the undue power we wrongly entrust. Will they go to court and tell the judge this? No, they will fabricate some reasons and evidence to justify their oppressive act.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They could get your children killed without being held liable personally. The government or more precisely taxpayers like us always indemnify and pay for the legal costs.

  3. Last week Bill C-36 was passed by Senate giving the Minister of Health Canada the right to search and seize any Canadian, home or business without a warrant. On a whim, or with due cause, at any time. It will be up to you to prove your innocence in a court of law as your guilt is assumed. Does this sound familiar? What hope do we have as Canadians to expect change and reform to Children Protective Services in Canada when our basic freedom of rights have been quashed with the stroke of a pen.

  4. There are many people in the USA and elsewhere who are fighting against tyranny, they just aren't usually in the mainstream news. More and more people are realizing that the mainstream news is full of lies, and they are therefore going elsewhere to get their news. Sources such as Wikileaks are gaining in popularity.

    The powers that be, the ones that are corrupt, know that their position is precarious. We can expect the injustice and oppression to escalate. Things will probably have to get worse before they get better, as not enough people think they are affected yet. And when they finally realize it, I just hope it isn't too late.

    I would like to see CPS corruption exposed on Wikileaks and then spread all over the Internet and all over the world in a fashion that made that corruption indisputable. I would then like to see people demand change, and the release of all children who are wrongfully held, and compensation to them and their families. If we can spend billions of dollars on the Olympics, I think we can pay for the enormous injustice and suffering we, as a society, have put these children and families through. I would gladly pay whatever my share is deemed to be.

  5. MCFD, and likely many other child protection agencies are not really compatible with Wikileaks because the majority of incriminating information is not stored in databases.

    Intelligence agencies that absolutely depend on data living in computer databases is the perfect target for wikileaks. What little there is to be found, the information is in the form of unproven allegations laced with opinion, which is designed to be read so that the parents are villified.

    So if a social worker records that the client is a Jesus freak, uncooperative with services, and a "source" claims the parent regularly leaves the child in the car in order to gamble, the "leak" does nothing that detracts from MCFD. It does enormous damage to the victim. The writer, more often than not, gets off scott free.

    The vast majority of paperwork, handwritten information like medical reports and black book notes are not transcribed, and are squirreled away in office file cabinets around the Province.

    The hard core information is lost in phone and verbal conversations. If you want information, MCFD will indeed give it to you, hundreds of mostly irrelevant pages - per client. Just try to make sense of the garbage that is accumulated. You need to be a data analysis expert to catch anomalies.

    No, a wikileaks concept would likely not dent MCFD that much. The front line workers are the ones doing the assessments, making the decisions and performing the removals that are rubber-stamped-approved by their team leaders.

    I doubt very much you would see communications telling various offices to step up removal rates, or finding more white babies for adoption. I've looked for anything associated with child protection on wikileaks, there isn't anything.

    Child protection operational deception ia much more subtle and practiced to be tripped up by just an inappropriate release of documents.

    What will do in child protection entities is recordings of team meetings and conversations surrounding removals of children, and talks with lawyers. Recordings of public servants plotting on what inaccuracies to populate intake reports and risk assessments with, discussions with counselors and psychologists directing them what to write in reports. The sort of thing that goes on daily, is reported by parents, but is kept completely off the record.

    MCFD spies on parents, they look through their personal medical records at will. Evidence of this, instructions given and followed, and the fact it occurs on a Province-wide basis -- this is what the public needs to confirm how useless and conniving child protection is.

    Without hard information to cooberate what we as parents are reporting, the general public will continue to believe child protection is doing their job properly, and the odd, rare, 'error' or death in care is inevitable.

  6. MCFD does remove children and re-remove children without sufficient or proper or actual evidence and many times judges do not order MCFD to return the children. I have seen it happen many times. A thirteen year old girl was removed when her mother was admitted to emergency following a seizure. MCFD assumed, but had no evidence at all, that the seizure was drug-related. 12 hours after the seizure, the mother was re-admitted to hospital to have major surgery to correct the overlooked medical condition that actually caused the seizure. The child was in care for many years but constantly ran away to her mother's house. She was re-removed three times for various reasons without ever having evidence and had no connection to the original removal. Even when a judge ordered that MCFD leave the child with her mother as she would just run again, MCFD removed again. And it went on and on until the child finally stopped returning to her mother's house. To this very day, that child does not speak to her mother.

  7. Ron, you said that parents who've had their children removed have no freedom, are being detained, and children are under 'foster arrest'. It is true that having a child removed is like being in hell but there is so much more that can't be described and it is life long. Even if a child is returned, it's a black mark, a scarlet letter for life for both the child and the parent. Every waking minute of my life is a hell. Even my sleep is hell. Eight years after the removal of my children and I can't function like a normal person. What I lost when I lost my children can never be regained. I lost my personality, my smile, my laugh, my love for baking and my love for life. I will never be who I was when I had my young children with me. Whether or not I am guilty of being a bad enough mom to lose my children for life is not the question. Were my children deserving of what they've been put through? I was told that one of my daughters was overheard saying, 'I wish I had a mom that I could tell everything to, a mom that I could come home to and talk about my day with'. The pain I have felt is not something I can explain. MCFD may have taken my children but it doesn't mean I was a bad mother. They didn't have evidence to prove I was any of the things they said I was and they didn't have evidence to prove their allegations against my partner. They actually entered completely false allegations to the courts and never had to answer for it. I slowly managed to accept my fate. After a long, hard fight in the courts with MCFD, I tried to start living again. I tried to ignore the humiliation, anger, frustration and depression. I tried to regain a relationship with my children after being away from them for so long. I have tried to learn to laugh and have a good time. Everyday is a trial for me. Each day I try not to think about the past but it haunts me. Each lonely, empty day in my quiet apartment is a reminder of what happened March 13, 2003. I know the truth about how MCFD conducts business and I know - all too well - the everlasting effects they impose on children and adults. My children will never be who they could have been. They will never have the security of knowing that mom is right there. They will never have confidence that their mother loves them. I always pray for the day that a smile will naturally cross my lips or the day a laugh will just naturally sound from my voice. I am a good person, I was the best mom I could be, I lived my life for my kids just like any other parent. I made mistakes but no different from any other mother. I did some things right too but none of that mattered when it came down to it. Nothing positive about me or my life ever came out in a courtroom. I can't honestly say whether or not I'm a good parent because I'm probably biased but I don't think I was bad enough to deserve to lose my kids and I know for certain that they don't deserve to suffer without a mother.

  8. I think the real tragedy is the public servants who have maligned the Baynes, and indeed countless others like poster 9:29 PM, are still employed and dole out the same destruction to hundreds of other families.

    When you have evidence, and have gone through a court process and can use the various invectives that introduces this blog, and can speak them with confidence to the faces of these perpetrators, they should no longer be working in the field again.

    These horrible workers should lose their social worker designation, and have intake reports recording the results of proceedings so that black mark exists on their record for life, preventing them from ever getting a job in the field again.

    Forget reforming the business, work out a process of making bad workers liabilities for child protection agencies who choose to continue employing them so succeeding parents affected by their administrations have a basis to refuse to deal with them.

    Perhaps this is where we need to get to. Have a 'wikileaks' that outlines specific workers who have parents who have their children returned and can outline their experience by publishing exact violations of their trade.

    Reward the workers who earn accolades from parents, remove those who should not be in the business.

    I have my kids back, and I know exactly what 9:29 PM is going through, because I still haven't gotten over it myself. I see every day the effects of MCFD's intervention and wonder if the trauma will cause problems for the kids when they are teenagers.

  9. With respect to Bill C-36 comment, I gather that Health Canada benefits by being able to enter a business and take any banned products from a store, and skip due process. The concept of precaution first and due process later would be the same as child protection. Seizing property on the basis of suspicion happens now in B.C. when drunk driving laws and excessive speeding violations occur.

    I looked up where Canada rated in the list of police states: position 29 out of 52 (U.S. is 6th and U.K. is 5th). Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines is at the bottom of the list.


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