Tuesday, December 14, 2010

WAIT A MINUTE! / Part 398 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

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.


  1. 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.

  2. Ron:

    Thank 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.

  3. Anon at December 14, 2010 9:18 am,

    Could 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.

  4. To: Anon on December 14, 2010 1:15 PM

    Thank 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.

  5. 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?
    Well 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.

  6. Mr. Anon of December 14, 2010 9:18 AM/3:38 PM

    With 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.

  7. 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.

    I 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."

  8. My daughter had an assessment(CAS) and it was an excellent assessment which in the end helped her get her child back.


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