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.
Ron,
ReplyDeletePerhaps 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ron. I too can fathom no other judgement. My horn is ready!
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteCan you please post the judge's decision on this blog?
ReplyDeleteBE ASSURED, THE DECISION WILL BE SEEN HERE.
ReplyDeleteJUDGE 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Anon 10:11 AM
ReplyDeleteMy 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.
Thank you, Ron; that would be extremely useful.
ReplyDelete