The court order hearing sought by the
Ministry to take custody of then 14 day old Josiah, is scheduled for
Thursday, February 24
th at 9:30 am at the Surrey
Provincial Court. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE BABY FROM HOSPITAL AND PLACED HIM WITH FOSTER PARENTS. YESTERDAY WAS PAINFUL FOR THE BAYNES IN MEETING WITH PEDIATRICIAN ETC.
 |
| Daddy Paul and Josiah |
The author of the supporting affidavit
for the custody of Josiah is the same social worker, Loren Humeny,
who has been charged with responsibility for this case for the past
three and one half years. He was delegated by the Director last year
to write the affidavit that reasoned for the continued care order for
Josiah's three older siblings. We have an unconfirmed hint that this week Judge Crabtree who oversaw the trial will be hearing this one too. He has heard before, everything that is contained within the newest affidavit. He doesn't have to hear it again. However, if the forecasted snow doesn't stop Doug Christie, the presiding judge can expect to hear from Doug, who will unquestionably make it clear that
there is no new evidence. Certainly none that pertains to Josiah.
Read my words. NO NEW EVIDENCE. Josiah
will be 14 days old tomorrow. He was only seven days old last
Thursday when the affidavit was scheduled to be ruled upon by another judge. It should be assumed that it was penned some hours/days before that. During that first week of the child's life there would have been little opportunity for contact between parents
and child and whatever contact there was, occurred within the careful
view of attendant hospital staff. There is no evidence that concerns
Josiah that Mr. Humeny can present in support of this order. If in fact Judge Crabtree is presiding tomorrow, it will be most interesting to hear what he does with this order application. Will he grant the custody order based upon that affidavit information? If he does, should the MCFD assume that he will similarly rule in its favour concerning the other three children on Monday? Will he himself decide that the ruling concerning Josiah will be rolled into his ruling concerning the three children, since the supporting evidence is identical? Numerous spin-off questions come to mind, too many to cite here.
 |
| Zabeth and her new baby |
On Mr. McNeill's behalf, Loren must
rely upon the same supportive material used for the CCO case for the
three siblings. Yes, that's correct. The 'stuff' upon which the judge is expected to rule on Thursday with respect to Josiah is the same
'stuff' upon which Judge Thomas Crabtree will rule no later than
Monday, the 28
th, four days later with respect to the
other three children. That's the substance of the MCFD allegation that Paul and/or Zabeth are a risk to their children. It is no surprise that the judge last week in
adjourning the hearing for a week when MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen and
social worker Loren Humeny did not make an appearance, said that the
Josiah hearing should be heard by Judge Crabtree. And now we understand Judge Crabtree will be present. Well we hope that may be the case. Certainly no other
judge would presume to rule on the same material upon which the Chief
Justice of B.C. will rule days later (28th). Judge Crabtree has been deliberating for the past six
months. In any case, what mysterious strategy it is to press forward with the order
application for Josiah when the Chief
Justice may make a landmark decision that explodes the CCO application
and Shaken Baby Syndrome and MCFD practice concerning '
the Bayne
Three' which will render irrelevant the affidavit concerning Josiah. The wisest course for MCFD would have been to
posture for another adjournment tomorrow but instead they took the child and here we are. Perhaps Judge Crabtree will see through the legal devices and will make the Baynes and the children wait even longer for a ruling, but I doubt that. He is very sensitive to the hardship created for the Baynes by this tedious process.
Do you want to know what was going on at
the hospital nursery these past few days? Do you wish to know what the
hospital staff were witnessing? Josiah was doing very well. He fed
well and he had regained weight to his birth weight. He responded
to Zabeth's and Paul's voices, and to the sound of his daddy’s
voice when he sang softly to him. Staff noticed that Zabeth and Paul
were the only parents who remained all day to hold and to feed their
baby boy. They saw Paul leave in order to attend to his evening work
contracts. They saw two parents who enjoy every moment with their
child, the way he smells, the way his tiny whimper sounds. They saw
parents whose hearts rejoiced when Josiah looked up at them. And this
loving care took place while the threat of his removal hung like a
pall upon them. Then yesterday, someone was authorized to try fitting him into a car seat, to be ready for eventual transportation and at 2 PM Kim Tran, Surrey social worker, removed him from the hospital. This was done even though Josiah's tiny 4 pound form had to be stuffed round with filler material for him to be restrained within the car seat straps. Did you know that his ability to endure the car seat travel mode was tested, for up to an hour and his responses monitored. Did you know that the hospital pediatrician who met with the Baynes and approved Josiah's readiness to be moved, is a colleague of Dr. Margaret Colbourne who diagnosed SBS in 2007. Don't know what if anything that indicates. It's just that the lower mainland is a virtual citadel of SBS proponents.
Oh, by the way, Judge Crabtree knows
the outrageous action that took place on Thursday February 10th. I surmise that Mr. Humeny stated in the
new affidavit that the child was removed under the authority of the CFCSA
because the Director had valid reason to believe the child needed
protection. That would be standard. And if as I suspect Mr. Humeny marked the box with an X that indicates that there was no less
disruptive protective measure available, that could be regarded as not wholly true? The less disruptive measure was in his face on the 10th. As soon as he knew that due to Josiah's prematurity the baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks, that of itself was the less disruptive measure for protecting the child, don't you think? That is, unless Paul and Zabeth are psychopaths. Therefore when Mr. Humeny drafted the affidavit he did know that this less disruptive option of simply waiting for two weeks was available. We must conclude that the Director and the
social worker were determined to hurry to seize the child, even though the latter could say, "I am only following orders." So, considering the larger MCFD entity rather than the Fraser Valley Region, it really was in
MCFD's best interest to hold back on Josiah's custody order and forego tomorrow's hearing and
simply wait for D-day on Monday, but again, here we are. Oh sure, because of that cute tactical manoeuvre, that is, two weeks have now passed because the MCFD team was a no-show in court, so of course, there is no less disruptive protection measure.
As I have earlier pointed out, it won't
matter whether Finn Jensen himself or a substitute counsel is present
for the MCFD on Thursday, since the MCFD counsel will have to point out to Judge Crabtree or another judge, everything that was earlier heard by Judge Crabtree
over several weeks that spread over all of 2010. It is all the same.
There is nothing new. I can't imagine how Judge Crabtree or another his/her honour will process this but even if the ruling concerning Josiah tomorrow is to grant MCFD the order, it may be obliterated within hours by the Crabtree
decision when he rules on Monday.
What is of importance is that we are going to know that
Paul and Zabeth have their children returned to them. That's very
optimistic isn't it. Naive? Time will tell. Will I rejoice, or will I be
thrust into despair to complete my trip to political cynicism.
Yesterday Paul and Zabeth Bayne were in court again as they were last Thursday, and it was again to deal with the apprehension of their youngest child, Josiah who yesterday was 2 weeks old. Ministry of Children took custody of him on the day of his birth, February 10th, five hours after his mother welcomed him into the air-breathing world. Last Thursday, the social worker who wrote the supporting affidavit did not appear in court. Neither did MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen, although it appears he requested the assistance of a Surrey based lawyer to represent the matter. The Judge chose to adjourn the case until yesterday. Yesterday Judge Kimberley Arthur-Leung presided. Ms. Arthur-Leung was appointed to the bench of the British Columbia Provincial Court in the Lower Mainland and took her seat effective March 31. 2008. She has a distinguished career working in private practice in family and civil law since being called to the British Columbia bar in 1989, and has been active in assorted community activities in Delta and in 2004 was recognized with a BC Achievement Foundation Award. She is unquestionably qualified to hear cases such as this one. 
When she allowed Mr. Christie to introduce himself and make a statement, he immediately expressed to Her Honour that the affidavit supporting the apprehension was filled with the same allegations against Paul and Zabeth, allegations which were already the subject of another case. The other case of course being that which required a year of time to conduct and over which another judge had been presiding. In fact, Christie pointed out that Judge Crabtree by virtue of a letter, a copy of which was handed to Judge Arthur-Leung, was going to deliver his ruling on that case this coming Monday, February 28th. Most importantly, those allegations had nothing to do with Josiah, and further the new affidavit contained nothing new in respect to Paul and Zabeth and their relationship with Josiah. And Mr. Christie said this is nothing less than an abuse of process. At that point, ten minutes after we began, Judge Arthur-Leung said that if this was going to be contested, it would not be now. She would stand it down. As she looked at a courtroom packed with people, she assumed that the benches were filled with people related to the many cases on her schedule. She announced that if she will hear any more of this case today, it would be after the other cases had been heard because it wouldn't be fair to all these parties to have to wait through a long contest over this removal which had not been scheduled as a hearing of this kind. She told Christie to leave. With that, the entire court room of spectators all dressed in black, quietly and respectfully filed out into the expansive lobby. That was a statement. This is an important case. This is not the usual expedite-it-quickly case. 
The affidavit prepared by the MCFD will
be ruled upon today. Among other reasons for this order request, MCFD
has used Section 30 of the Child, Family and Community Services Act,
as described in section 13, and said that the child has been, or is
likely to be, physically harmed by the child's parent. Further, that
the child's parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child and
has not made adequate provision for the child's care. I cannot
underscore how absurd, how inaccurate, how unacceptable those
statements are with respect to the Baynes.
This is the newborn baby boy who was to be the subject of yet another apprehension on February 10th. That was your plan. This is Josiah. But he was only hours old. He was premature. To think that you actually ordered the apprehension and naively expected
to remove the child into foster care that day in his premature
state and with all his needs, is revealing in the extreme. 
Of course Bruce, Loren, you couldn't affect the plan because medical professionals
demanded that the child remain in hospital for some considerable time.You had information about Zabeth's condition and the baby's, and you could have anticipated his condition at birth. Nonetheless, you still took custody of Josiah in an official sense but needed to have an order approved by a judge, and that of course was to be heard and ruled last Thursday the 17th wasn't it? Covering one's tracks is readily apparent to most observant people so when legal counsel and social worker (chief testimony) didn't show up for court, the judge had little option but to grant a postponement. So this Thursday the 24th we are to hear what you propose to justify the insult to public conscience. Everyone knows that it was unnecessary to rush to an apprehension order for an infant who could not leave the hospital. Everyone knows how fundamentally wrong and ill advised it is for you to presume to approve or disapprove the use of a mother's breast milk for the feeding of her baby. Everyone knows that these hands should not be separated, or this tiny hand should not be placed into a foster mother's hand. It is time that your business demonstrates compassion and mercy and love.
Take a peek at Josiah, so small and needy of his parents, tiny hand curling around his mother's finger, lovingly held in his daddy's and mommy's arms. the link is to an album.
