Friday, December 31, 2010

GOODBYE AND HELLO / Part 404 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne


We are almost done, that is, done with 2010. Some ground was gained for the Bayne family, but so much has already been lost. Three hundred and fifty six more days passed with the children not overnighting, not living in the Bayne family home. 356 days added to the previous two years during which these children have been physically separated from their mommy and daddy unless in the company of a government ministry supervisor. Over the course of 2010, the Baynes were at least permitted their days in court to defend themselves against the allegations of the Ministry of Children. The judge who heard the case ruled an increase in visitation time for the parents, as well as granting visitation in the family home and very soon he will render his ruling on the all important matter of permanent custody.

I hope the journalists and cameras are on hand when the announced ruling is delivered early in January 2011. That ruling is expected not later than January 19th. When the Judge returns these three children to Paul and Zabeth there should be horn blowing and celebration. What I hope for is a repudiation of the regional office of the Ministry of Children and Family Development that has managed this case. More than that, I wish for a climate change within MCFD, that Ministry leadership will listen to the heart-cries of the people whom the Ministry is commissioned to help. Maybe this ruling against the Fraser Valley Regional MCF can be a teachable moment for MCFD.

Parents who have experienced or are experiencing what the Baynes have endured this long, are filled with anger and rage. No one can blame them. They feel ambushed. Their lives have been invaded and interrupted and overwhelmed. In some of these cases, the continued involvement of the Ministry is technically defensible based upon the Child and Family Community Services Act, but is not justified based upon actual evidence. It is then that the Ministry's engagement feels like harassment and molestation. 

I do not even want to consider the other possible outcome of the Judge's analysis of twenty-two days of court presentations. It would be outrageous to grant the CCO in this case, to remove the children permanently from their parents. I genuinely believe that outcome is improbable.  Goodbye 2010 and the past, and hello 2011 and the future. The Baynes, a united family, free from surveillance, free to live and grow together.

9 comments:

  1. Ron,
    Perhaps my comment should not be posted, I will let you decide. Nobody has dared whisper a word about what if? We know that the Baynes are innocent and deserve to be reunited with their children, we know without a doubt, but we know corruption lurks. God forbid! Do we have a plan B?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Lisa. Well I intimated that I personally don't even want to imagine the what if scenario. I have no idea how Paul and Zabeth would handle this. We are all and certainly they are believing that the ruling will be favourable for them. Judicially, I can't see how it would be anything but returning the children. Ministry evidence is absent. Everything is circumstantial and suspicion based. With no other kind of court ruling could a prosecution succeed with just that. This is a pathetic injudicial system. I am sure the Bayne advisors would come up with a Plan B if it is needed. Let's pray it doesn't come to that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Ron. I too can fathom no other judgement. My horn is ready!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did not know it at the time, but precisely because there was no real evidence against me, MCFD tried much harder in court to draw things out and it is intimidating to the parents. I was made to feel frightened as if they had all this evidence. My SW brushed me off when I said that I did not know what possibly they could have on file against me. It was a lot of theatrics and bluffing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can you please post the judge's decision on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  6. BE ASSURED, THE DECISION WILL BE SEEN HERE.
    JUDGE CRABTREE'S DECISION IS EXPECTED NO LATER THAN JANUARY 19TH AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT DECISION WILL NOT APPEAR HERE. IT IS THAT FOR WHICH THIS BLOG HAS AIMED FOR 1 1/2 YEARS. I WILL HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAD TO SUFFER PARALYSIS AND AMNESIA NOT TO POST THAT DECISION FOR YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, I thought you would. I mean the entire Reasons for Judgment copied and pasted on your blog, so people can see the actual words of the judge. That might be a bit long, so you might have to figure out some way to get 30 or 60 pages of text onto this blog - don't know how that would work.


    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 10:11 AM
    My guess is that Judge Crabtree will write a multi-page decision, perhaps twenty pages. Just a hunch. I am certain that a good synopsis of the Judge's ruling can be provided here, and if the entire document is presented to each party of this contentious issue, then perhaps a copy of that file can be placed as a downloadable file.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you, Ron; that would be extremely useful.

    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