Wednesday, December 22, 2010


Judge Crabtree did not accede to the Baynes’ application for a variance of the interim custody and the previous court ordered access/visitation, specifically asking for unsupervised visitation and overnight stay over Christmas. He stated that this was too substantive a change to the present interim custody and the Baynes’ arguments touch upon the very issues and evidence at the heart of the trial upon which he is completing his analysis and his ultimate ruling which he expects will be delivered around January 19th, 2011. Zabeth and Paul will still have a Christmas visitation with their children.


  1. This is too bad for the Baynes. This suggests that the kangaroo court is merely a very expensive rubber stamp. It fails society's expectation to protect the best interests of families and to provide sufficient check and balance of abuse of authority.

    To the Anon who wrote in Part 403 on December 19, 2010 4:26 PM:

    "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."

    If you want to pay your share for somebody else's mistake, be my guest. I certainly don't. One of the many reasons why there is no accountability is because these social parasites never have to pay for their mistakes and abuse. Taxpayers are always too silent and lenient. Their ill gotten assets including their residence, RRSP and pension should be liquidated to pay for the damages to compensate children and parents who suffered in their hands.

  2. I don't want to pay for someone else's mistake. But I would far prefer that, if my money is going to be taken for such things as the Olympics (a 2 week party that has left us broke), that it go instead to compensate the victims of MCFD. Of course it would be far better to have the responsible individuals pay up, but this will probably never happen, and never has happened even when government has been found liable. So I opt for the next best thing, which is that the taxpayers pay. I would gladly pay for my share, because it would mean that a huge injustice has been addressed, not completely (because the perpetrators will probably never personally pay), but it would be much better than what we have now.

    As far as this ruling goes by Judge Crabtree, it is very disappointing, but I can't believe that Judge Crabtree could rule as he did regarding the medical "evidence" and then ultimately rule against the Baynes in January. That would make no sense whatsoever.

  3. I read with some interest of a father in Franklin County in Pennsylvaia accused of SBS who was aquitted by a Jury after a one-week trial and a 2-hour deliberation.


    One of the experts, Dr. Patrick Barnes was also used by the Baynes.

    The decision by Judge Crabtree taking from the beginning of October to late January is about 14 weeks of elapsed time.

    So, what's wrong with this picture? Should one of the Baynes have been first placed in jail for a year to get a quicker resolution?

  4. I find Judge Crabtree to be very hard to understand and very frustrating. He must have known all along that he would not make such a substantive change for the reasons he gave. I can quite understand his reasons and they are certainly supportable at this stage in the hearing. What I cannot understand was why he did not simply use a little common sense and humanity. He could have told the Baynes on November 8th, that he was reluctant to hear applications for unsupervised visits and advised them not to proceed on this basis. He seems so enslaved by process that he is unable to do things any other way. He could have saved a lot of work and stress if he had simply said that he would not hear the matter. I have done quite a lot of pushing and background work in the quest for unsupervised access. The judge's ambiguity has put me in the embarrassing position of getting other people to fight in a lost cause. I have unwittingly added to the stress in the Baynes' life.
    On the positive side, the Baynes have argued the access issue twice before and they have on each occasion made gains in spite of opposition by the director. They got more than double the access time and the cherished choice of home venue for visits. Well I suppose two out of three ain't bad?
    I am still convinced that the director has fallen far short of the proof required for a CCO and the extra access already granted has given a strong hint of the judge's likely direction. There is a lot more hanging on this case than the issue of this protection finding. This can be a landmark decision that could affect many other people. In this respect I am glad that Judge Crabtree is ultra-cautious and wants his judgement to be watertight. Since he was appointed chief judge earlier this year, it must have put a lot of extra pressure on him.
    Santa did not give me the only present that I really wanted. Maybe I will get it late, on January 19th. Santa works in mysterious ways!!!


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