Some of you will be upset with me for
trying this.
I am asking you to try on something
hypothetical. Let's just suppose for a moment that either Paul or
Zabeth did actually harm their baby girl in September 2007. If a non
accident injury caused the medical issues that put her life at risk
three years ago, one of these parents lost control. That's what one
would conclude. These parents already had two sons. Affectionate and thoughtful nurture of
these boys typified
the Baynes' parental pattern. The arrival of a daughter was an astounding blessing to
them. When she was merely weeks old, this hypothesis would propose
that mommy or daddy lost it. It could hardly be deliberate cruelty.
It couldn't be abuse of that nature. That would be unmistakeably a
crime, a felony. Then what else could it be if not an accident or a
crime? It would have to be the unfortunate outcome of a fit of
impatience or annoyance or anger. A parent would have had to hit the
child's head, or knock the child's head to the floor, some
appallingly awful action. And if this had been done, one parent did
it and the other would somehow learn or know that truth. Both would
be complicit in this injury to a child because one perpetrated it and
one concealed it. These two people would have to be without
consciences or with flawed ethics.
That is not the Zabeth and Paul that
their family and their friends know. It is not the parental couple
that Judge Thomas Crabtree watched for twenty-two days in court.
Before their release and the dropped
charges, when Zabeth and Paul were arrested, the events were so
shocking to her that she had a physical, emotional meltdown and had
to be hospitalized. That is not a manifestation of cover-up but
violent astonishment and overwhelming fear at these out of control
circumstances.
Permit me to carry the conjecture
further. If one parent injured the child and the other knew about it,
could they both be so steel-hearted that they would endure the
sustained removal of all three of their children? If in those early
weeks, Zabeth knew that Paul had injured their youngest child and if
she herself assessed him as a risk, and if she were told that her
three children would be returned to her if Paul did not have access
to them, do you think that she would have chosen to be with Paul
rather than her children? Or turn that equation around the other way,
with Zabeth the guilty one and Paul the innocent parent. Is it
reasonable to think that these two people would say “our love for
one another is of greater importance to each of us than our children
are, so we will hang in together and hope for the best in trying to
regain custody?”
I will attempt one other scenario.
Let's speculate that both Paul and Zabeth are innocent of having
inflicted any harm to their third child, a helpless, infant daughter.
This proposal includes an accidental injury that caused the initial
injury that escalated with passing days. Let's further include a
tumble of one sybling upon the infant at a time that approximates the
start of the baby's physical distress. Let's suppose that Paul and
Zabeth were absolutely desperate to have medical professionals
ascertain what was wrong with this baby in her deteriorating
condition back in 2007. Each failed visit to a hospital made them
more frantic. This proposition portrays the parents as distraught and
sick at heart when they learned both the severity of their child's
injuries and the accusation against them of willfully hurting her.
Then let's see them in this script immediately and always asserting
their innocence, insistently, unwaveringly maintaining this
innocence, through every attempt by the social worker team and legal
counsel to make one of them cave. I can tell you now that Zabeth's
maternal instincts are so powerful that she has weathered the chasm
of suffering that have been these past three years and at last
endured insidious, slanderous statements from a Ministry lawyer
determined to end her motherhood. These parents have been so focused
upon regaining their family, there is nothing that is more important
to them as may be with some parents, not drugs, not alcohol, not
personal vacation, travel, career opportunities, acquisitions,
nothing! Nothing has sidetracked them. Not the Hope B.C. MCFD
callousness and intimidation. Nothing! Oh, wait a minute. That's right, this latter
storyline is the only one that is credible. Only this scenario
explains what we have witnessed for three years. Only this one
explains why Judge Crabtree has refused to act like other judicial
lightweights who might cow-tow to the MCFD allegations. Instead he
has increased visitation times for the parents and given them at home
visitation. That's because this last version is not an hypothesis but
the truth.
Look at the way the Baynes have conducted themselves, versus the way the Ministry of Children and Family Development has conducted themselves. There is no comparison. Any reasonable person - and you would hope a judge is a reasonable person - can see what is going on here, and that the children should be returned, asap, to these good and loving parents.
ReplyDeleteRon:
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your theological thoughts on Samuel 8:7-20.
You are right that God was their King and He indirectly ruled via judges prior to the United Kingdom era. However, your view that Israel's populace agitated for a king for no other reason than that they could be like other nations is not quite exact. By asking for a king like other nations, they rejected God or His governance through judges and wanted a man-rule regime. God warned them what they are getting themselves into before granting their silly wish. In those days, it was monarchy. Now it is government, especially in a democracy where people naively believe that they are in charge and could change their government with ease. God's warnings in the aforesaid verses apply to modern government as well. Man rejects the first best and opts for the second best.
Despite a much smaller scale in affecting victims, Nazi gas chamber example is relevant as the numbing tactics used to reduce resistance from victims before entering chamber and accepting MCFD "child protection" intervention are the same. Structural destruction is common in both regimes.
Frankly, there is a spiritual dimension when you enter the world of advocating changes in "child protection". Non-believers will think that this is totally nut. I do pray you will heed the advice from 2 Corinthians 11:14 and will pray for His protection on you and your family.
Anon at December 14, 2010 9:18 am,
ReplyDeleteCould you please elaborate on what you mean regarding your statement that there is:
"a spiritual dimension when you enter the world of advocating changes in "child protection".
Thank you.
To: Anon on December 14, 2010 1:15 PM
ReplyDeleteThank you for your inquiry.
If you share the Christian faith, you ought to have understood without further elaboration.
If you don't share the same faith, take it as a religious fanatic nut talk.
If you belong to a special interest or work for MCFD, you got a illusion disorder case.
Ron; I have a little challenge today for all you bloggers out there. Anyone who has been following this blog is aware of the thing called a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a checklist of social worker opinions about various aspects of a parent's life. Such an assessment requires no evidence to back up the opinion. If the social worker says it is so, then it must be so. A little snag there though. This assessment is filled in by the social worker who snatched your kids and who has been your implacable adversary for 18 months at the time it was done. How impartial is it likely to be. Would you believe it could be nothing but character assassination to justify the ministry actions because the real evidence was unreliable? Secondly,if the same people came forward asking you to undergo a "parental capacity" assessment, would you trust them to be impartial and fair? If they wanted to do this to make sure that your unborn child would not be "at risk", would you be happy to have them do it?
ReplyDeleteWell what I would like you all to do is to make an assessment. Hmmm, let me see. Why do we not call it a "directoral capacity" assessment? The assessment must be done with the same standard of discipline impartiality and fairness that was used on the Baynes. Of course first of all one must have some sort of concept of the job description. I will make a start on it and others can add to it, before you start your assessment. Let me see what I can do off the cuff. "To direct, manage and lead a large staff of child welfare and protection workers.To ensure that they are carefully trained in assessment and communication skills. To ensure that they all work to a strict code of ethics, such as that required by registered social workers. ( honest, truthful and respectful to clients and safeguarding their rights.) To ensure that all managers, team leaders and social workers are thoroughly instructed in the time lines and the guidelines of the CF&CSA and that they stay in strict compliance with these guidelines." Well that will do to start with. Now bloggers please start sending in your directorial capacity assessment for the director of the Fraser region.
Mr. Anon of December 14, 2010 9:18 AM/3:38 PM
ReplyDeleteWith due respect, I would say that 1:15 PM deserves an answer to the question he/she posed. So Anon 1:15 I will provide that answer because it is one which you likely surmise to be the case. When the other writer mentions “a spiritual dimension” that exists when one enters the world of advocating changes in child protection, 'he' is inferring several things, among which are the inherent evil within child protection, the control of child protection by unseen forces (let's call them dark, or maybe Satanic), the jeopardy one risks that advocacy will result in reprisal from the spiritual darkness. So I suppose if you don't share that view you can do what the writer suggests and take the writer's suggestion and call this fanatic nut talk or you can more graciously grant that's his opinion. And if as he hints you might be an MCFDr or some 'special interest' person, whatever he means by that, you probably do not even care what he meant.
Thank you, Ron, for that answer at December 14, 2010 4:41 PM, which I agree with, and was hoping to hear / read when I asked the previous Anon to elaborate.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is important to recognize and discuss, from time to time, this spiritual element of the child protection battle; unfortunately, the previous Anon misinterpreted my question as scepticism or whatever, when it was in fact a desire to hear someone else's thoughts on this spiritual element.
I am not special interest, unless concern with parental and family rights is "special interest."
My daughter had an assessment(CAS) and it was an excellent assessment which in the end helped her get her child back.
ReplyDelete