Monday, January 17, 2011

A FAITH COMPONENT / Part 422 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Most of you who are regular readers have prowled the connecting links to know that all of my adult life has been spent as a pastor to people, in service work you might say. Pastoring requires a variety of skill sets if it is to be done well. Pastors become confidants and counsellors. Pastors meet people at all stages of their lives, the times of grief as well as the times of exhilaration. You may be aware as well that I am retired from formal pastoral work. The faith and the instincts do not shut down however, nor does one's love for people. With that in mind, I am trusting that you will accommodate me today regardless of your own belief system, whether it includes a deity or not. From my framework and reference I connect with Paul and Zabeth. We approach these difficult times in the following manner. A brief time ago I wrote to the Baynes,
Hi Zabeth and Paul,
I trust that you have awoken well today and as soon as your minds clear, you can rest in the LORD, for His grace is enough to quell the fears. In any and every eventuality He is with you. Of that I am certain. His promises are clear enough and your implicit trust in the Saviour Jesus Christ is unwavering. I trust that in numerous ways today, you will become aware of His involvement in small details of your lives as tokens of his care for you in the large issues of life. Here is something beautiful from the inspired word of God. “When hard pressed, I cried to the LORD; he brought me into a spacious place. The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?"- Psalm 118:5-6

Dear Zabeth and Paul, this morning there is an unseen army of prayer warriors, believers in localities all over this province and in other provinces who are interceding for you and your three children and for Josiah. There is also, from what we know in scripture, an invisible host of angelic beings as real as we are, yet whose abilities transcend anything we know, and who are responding to God's directions in accordance with His will and with the prayers of His people which He enjoys and to which He responds. God loves you both. that will never change. He loves each of your children. They are His creation. God established 'family.' It is within your family that the four children whom He has given to you will be best nurtured, loved and with you they will develop most fully and healthily.
It is almost D-Day. D-3. Whatever designation we ascribe to the letter D, whether 'Decision' Day, or 'Deliverance' Day or some other descriptive, that day is almost here. RESPECTFULLY, Dr. Ron Unruh


  1. I wonder how many social workers attend church, and in the same community as the parents whose children were taken.

    In context with the previous commenter who posted a linke to the CAS non-registered social workers, the idea representative parents would have a social worker degree, law degree, and be a PHd psychologist, and mediation exper.

    This is because this is what parents with no such skills face.

  2. To: Ron said... January 17, 2011 8:00 AM (in Part 421 January 16, 2011)

    There are many bloggers believing in revoking child removal authority. Some of them had mentioned before that there are other laws empowering authorities to remove children in lift threatening situations based on due process of law and good evidence. Killing CFCSA and revoking general child removal authority will not compromise real child protection work at all because there are other laws doing the job. You simply are not aware of their existence or do not believe that they work.

    Your good friend Mr. Ferris tried to challenge this position citing parental drinking problem. I do not believe that alcohol addiction alone is good enough to remove one's child. For the sake of argument, let's say that this worths government intervention. There are provisions in the Criminal code dealing with situation like this. Mr. Ferris remains silent since then. I look forward to hearing from someone like him who used to earn a living by removing other's children to discuss more genuine child protection concerns which warrant removal that have not been taken care of by other laws.

    It is precisely your attitude that permits special interests to swing and manoeuvre and prevents meaningful reform. Without revoking general child removal authority, there is no way to protect Canadian families from suffering like the Baynes. Another blogger suggested granting such authority to the police. Would you change your position after watching the video below?

    This is just one of the many examples of police brutality in this province. Cops are just another breed of thug, much less dangerous than SW but no less abusive in my view.

    To correct your posting in the last few days, the re-removal of the Bayne's boys was not done without cause. It was a retaliation against their parent's going public. Social parasites are fully aware of the financial punishment caused by their actions. It was inflicted intentionally as they have done consistently to all oppressed parents.

    All these could happen simply because the government has the undue power to remove children. CFCSA allows SW to define child abuse, circumvent due process of law and charter right protection. Statue, case law and legal process have gone so lopsided against parents. Authority to remove children from their families seriously jeopardizes public safety and challenges our long cherished human rights, civil liberty and freedom.

    I understand that you are brought up in and indoctrinated by a culture and an era in which removal of other's children is an acceptable proposition. With all due respect, revoking child removal authority is the only viable solution. Is it tenable? Absolutely. Is it acceptable in a society with your attitude? Not quite yet. Given sufficient education on this issue, I am confident that people will eventually find this agreeable unless they are stupid, dogmatic and refuse to learn from history.

  3. You know Anon 4:11 PM
    You may be right. Maybe the abolition of child removal is the only viable solution to our repeated heartbreaks and injustices. I'm just saying I'm not certain. And the arguments so far are not convincing me that it is workable solution. Perhaps your solution is the ideal, that is, grant no child removal power to child protection authority. Give that only to police in the event of chargeable offenses. Is that how you see it playing out? You say there are laws to handle actual abuse and neglect cases and these could conceivably require the removal of a child. Am I correct so far? And do you have any concerns that the same worrisome issues will arise if the police are exclusively given this responsibility? Given the link about the Kelowna demonstration over police brutality of an innocent citizen, wouldn't you worry about a rogue cop or two making some family's lives terrible? How do you see this working? MCFD acquires concerns about a child's safety and perhaps even about the child being already abused, so they do a call-in to the police and the police must now investigate and if there are substantiated concerns, then a child may be removed, so the police do that and drop the child into MCFD hands for care? Is that how it would come down? I don't understand what you feel is gained, other than if you are saying there would be fewer removals. Perhaps you are right. Who can say? But I do disagree with you about this. I am pretty sure that the impasse to reform doesn't revolve around me and my view. I don't think that my attitude is the great hold-back to reform of child protection. I would think that there are others who have the power to make changes to whom you could first point a finger. After all I do see inequities. I do see unfairness. I do speak against perceived injustices. I do contend that child removal is too much the default action rather than last resort. I have not as you have written about me, been raised in a culture in which removing someone's child is acceptable. I don't find it acceptable. But I can see that with some adults, the removal of a child is necessary.

  4. I note a "line by line rewrite" of the child protection law in P.E.I. A review of this would indicate if there is any reform mindset, or a hapless Minister unfamiliar with the complexities and subtleties involved. There are very few comments (7). I wonder what a "line-by-line" rewrite of the B.C. version would look like.

  5. Thanks for the reference to the PEI rewrite comment. I look forward to reading it and perhaps getting back to you on this.


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