Hope Couple's Baby Seized by MCFD Hours after Birth
By Tim Amey
Monday, February 14, 2011 05:00 AM
Chilliwack, B.C. - Paul and Zabeth Bayne say they are completely devastated. At 6:30am last Thursday morning Zabeth gave birth to a baby boy. By noon the same day a Social Worker from Hope was telling them it was going into Foster Care.
The Bayne's three other kids have been in the care of Ministry of Children and Family Development since September 2007. It was after what they say was a misdiagnosed case of shaken baby syndrome on their then infant daughter.
Zabeth says she was just out of delivery, waiting for a private room when she was approached by a social worker. “I asked that they wait. You know I’m exhausted, I just delivered. And it wasn’t a good time and if they could just come back in the evening or if they could come back tomorrow.” They didn’t.
She says their newborn was premature and needs to bond and nurse. The baby is still in the hospital and Zabeth has been sent home. Needless to say she's completely crushed.
Their lawyer Doug Christie isn't crushed, he's angry. He says this never should have happened. Christie says they are waiting on a final decision from the judge on whether the first three kids can be returned. He's even sent the judge a letter asking that he speed up his decision. He says if a decision had come down by now, the newborn never would have been seized.
Christie says the Ministry of Children and Family Development does this kind of thing all the time. “What I have seen the Ministry do, as in many cases, has been totally irrational to me and cruel to parents and children. I have very little regard for the Ministry’s actions.” However he has never seen a newborn seized in his 40 years of legal practice.
Hawk News contacted the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and got this reply:
Got your media request re. MCFD process on child apprehensions – also, if you are asking about the Baynes case, we can’t comment due to privacy concerns and the fact this matter is before the courts.
That said, the safety and well being of any child is the ministry’s first priority and the first step to any child protection case is to assess and investigate if the child is in need of protection. If it is deemed that a child needs protection, MCFD, through its legislation, must go before the courts within seven days, where a Judge will determine if a child is in need of protection. The Judge would then make a decision whether a child would remain in Ministry care or be returned to the parent. Chris Ash, Manager, PAB, Ministry of Children & Family Development
The attitudes of some people are so encouraging to others. Some are compassionate and willing to get the information before forming judgments concerning other people's lives.
ReplyDeleteOthers know everything there is to know about anything and everything others are doing and even to the point of deciding if others are eating right. Answer the question of low birth weight and then there is a new set of accusations. It seems to me slander is the intention with the aim of taking the focus off MCFD conduct and the case as it is before the court.
Actually, after this family justice MCFD BC style charade, anyone should have open eyes about the issues facing the people of our province and nation. This is the sort of injustice we have ignored regularly. We have ignored the plight of the native families, families in financial or domestic struggles, the doukobour children who were stolen from their homes, those wrongfully convicted of horrendous crimes and any other public issues that didn't involve ourselves. The tactic of diverging to talk about a mother not eating the way some stranger (?) thinks is right is a smoke screen and we need these people to come forward to be identified and answer their charges under cross examination. After all this is in the courts.
The reply by Christine Ash, who apparently is actually the Media Relations Manager for MCFD, is so typical. But let's just take a look at what "Chris" has to say about the need for women to breast feed their children (this is in reference to a Vancouver Sun editorial criticizing a women who breastfed her child in a store);
ReplyDelete"Would [the store owner] rather have a child screaming and crying? Then [someone] would probably complain the mother was neglecting the child,” Christine Ash from the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development, said."
Note Chris' fake indignation at the violation of mother/child's rights. Truly pathetic.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/greenmama/2011/01/19/vancouver-sun-shames-woman-breastfeeding-public
I urge all readers to go to this Vancouver Sun story, because it deals again with the issue of breastfeeding and human rights. Note, in particular, the following passage:
"It wasn’t just the mother’s feelings that were violated: “breastfeeding is a human right in B.C,” said Robyn Durling, Communications Officer for the B.C. Human Rights Coalition.
Vikki Bell, Registrar at the Human Rights Tribunal, confirmed that women who feel that they have been harassed or inappropriately denied reasonable accommodation to breastfeed their child in public (including stores) can file a complaint under the sex discrimination part of the Human Rights Code."
Maybe it's time to file a Human Rights Complaint. More importantly, let's get the word out that a mother is being cruelly denied the right to breastfeed, and an infant is being denied the physical and pyschological benefits of breast feeding.
Breast feeding has massive support around the world, and is a good way to make this issue go viral.
Contact: Manda Aufochs Gillespie (author of article chastising Vancouver Sun for their demeaning approach to breastfeeding women):
EMAIL: manda@thegreenmama.com
Or Call the "Green Mama:"
United States - 773.299.8502
Canada - 604.417.6888
"It wasn’t just the mother’s feelings that were violated: “breastfeeding is a human right in B.C,” said Robyn Durling, Communications Officer for the B.C. Human Rights Coalition."
http://www.bchrcoalition.org/
Robyn Durling:
The B.C.
Human Rights Coalition
#1202
510 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 1L8
Tel: 604.689.8474
Fax: 604.689.7511
1-877-689-8474
=========
Vikki Bell, Registrar at the Human Rights Tribunal, confirmed that women who feel that they have been harassed or inappropriately denied reasonable accommodation to breastfeed their child in public (including stores) can file a complaint under the sex discrimination part of the Human Rights Code.
The Human Rights Code is pretty impenetrable reading for most of us. Luckily, the Attorney General spells out how the Human Rights Code applies to the average person. Under the title Human Rights in British Columbia, Sexual Discrimination and Harassment, it says: “In B.C., it is illegal to discriminate against or harass a person because of their sex, [which] includes pregnancy, breastfeeding, and sexual harassment.” It goes on to talk about WHERE it is illegal: “It protects people from discrimination in public situations, which include schools, workplaces, universities, HOSPITALS, medical clinics, stores, restaurants, provincial and local government offices, and transit services.”
The reply by Christine Ash, who apparently is actually the Media Relations Manager for MCFD, is so typical. But let's just take a look at what "Chris" has to say about the need for women to breast feed their children (this is in reference to a Vancouver Sun editorial criticizing a women who breastfed her child in a store);
ReplyDelete"Would [the store owner] rather have a child screaming and crying? Then [someone] would probably complain the mother was neglecting the child,” Christine Ash from the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development, said."
Note Chris' fake indignation at the violation of mother/child's rights. Truly pathetic.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/greenmama/2011/01/19/vancouver-sun-shames-woman-breastfeeding-public
I urge all readers to go to this Vancouver Sun story, because it deals again with the issue of breastfeeding and human rights. Note, in particular, the following passage:
"It wasn’t just the mother’s feelings that were violated: “breastfeeding is a human right in B.C,” said Robyn Durling, Communications Officer for the B.C. Human Rights Coalition.
Vikki Bell, Registrar at the Human Rights Tribunal, confirmed that women who feel that they have been harassed or inappropriately denied reasonable accommodation to breastfeed their child in public (including stores) can file a complaint under the sex discrimination part of the Human Rights Code."
Maybe it's time to file a Human Rights Complaint. More importantly, let's get the word out that a mother is being cruelly denied the right to breastfeed, and an infant is being denied the physical and pyschological benefits of breast feeding.
Breast feeding has massive support around the world, and is a good way to make this issue go viral.
Contact: Manda Aufochs Gillespie (author of article chastising Vancouver Sun for their demeaning approach to breastfeeding women):
EMAIL: manda@thegreenmama.com
Or Call the "Green Mama:"
United States - 773.299.8502
Canada - 604.417.6888
"It wasn’t just the mother’s feelings that were violated: “breastfeeding is a human right in B.C,” said Robyn Durling, Communications Officer for the B.C. Human Rights Coalition."
http://www.bchrcoalition.org/
Robyn Durling:
The B.C.
Human Rights Coalition
#1202
510 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 1L8
Tel: 604.689.8474
Fax: 604.689.7511
1-877-689-8474
=========
Vikki Bell, Registrar at the Human Rights Tribunal, confirmed that women who feel that they have been harassed or inappropriately denied reasonable accommodation to breastfeed their child in public (including stores) can file a complaint under the sex discrimination part of the Human Rights Code.
The Human Rights Code is pretty impenetrable reading for most of us. Luckily, the Attorney General spells out how the Human Rights Code applies to the average person. Under the title Human Rights in British Columbia, Sexual Discrimination and Harassment, it says: “In B.C., it is illegal to discriminate against or harass a person because of their sex, [which] includes pregnancy, breastfeeding, and sexual harassment.” It goes on to talk about WHERE it is illegal: “It protects people from discrimination in public situations, which include schools, workplaces, universities, HOSPITALS, medical clinics, stores, restaurants, provincial and local government offices, and transit services.”
This is again very appalling that they would apprehend a newborn. The only times I have seen newborns apprehended is if the mother has been doing drugs during her pregnancy and then they remove the baby at birth. This is NOT the case with the Baynes, so why is it that they felt they had to take such a needless step. The baby was not in any need of protection. Lets just hope the judge who presides over this matter returns at the Presentation Hearing. This is uncalled for!!.
ReplyDeleteDianna, it is true that the Judge last week inferred that the hearing should be before Judge Crabtree since he is ruling on the three other children. Whether that can be possible will be up to him I think since he has now the responsibility of Chief Justice for BC. The good thing is that he will probably have been made aware of this newborn incident and my guess is that he will take kindly to this unnecessary action, even though the Ministry can justify itself legally.
ReplyDeleteAnon who wrote about Chris Ash and about the breast feeding debate, thanks, because you have included some great reading and references.
ReplyDeleteChris Ash gave the standard MCF blurb in reply which is on a card written for her by Leslie Dutoit. She dare not deviate from it under pain of having her blackberry removed.
ReplyDeleteShe should ask permission to change her spiel as follows. When a social worker has good reason to believe that a child is at risk,he/she must ensure the safety of that child and is legally obliged to ensure that no less disruptive course is available. They must swear before a judge that such a course was taken. I can give you every assurance that I have looked closely into the case and every effort was made to ensure that the worker complied strictly with this legal requirement.
Of course the affidavit of Humeny contained a check off that no less disruptive course was available. This was a bald faced lie. All he had to do was nothing. I had suggested to Doug Chistie that if Humeny turned up with that affidavit, he should immediately accuse him of perjury. NO wonder they adjourned.
Tomorrow I am going to write about why I am convinced that the judge cannot make a continuing care order on the BAyne case.
Meantime I beg Humeny to be as decent as possible until the judge rules. Stop trying to interfere with poor Zabeth feeding her child mother's milk. Just try to do the decent thing and stand up to your boss if you have to.
A society that is comfortable with young women of child-bearing age getting breast implants, but uncomfortable with them breast feeding babies has a long way to go before it can boast liberation for women.
ReplyDeletePhaedraDawn,
ReplyDeleteIt's not just being "uncomfortable" with the breastfeeding, it's seems to be a hatred of mothering and families that is driving this madness. They (MCFD) haven't just said "oh, please don't breastfeed in public" they have denied infant and baby the right to express breastmilk and to have expressed breastmilk!
These people are just creepy(MCFD).
hey I know how you are feeling they are trying to do the same thing to me and i am still pragent they are not being fair to the mothers and babys its not right that mcfd can do this to anyone i think they should be useing the same laws as the rcmp have to.
ReplyDeleteI see i'm not alone in this situation! MCFD did the same thing to my baby @ 4 months old. I had been soley breastfeeding my daughter right up until 2 weeks past her removal @ 4 months. I had been pumping on command, even getting up in the middle of the night to pump because social worker had been transporting it to my baby. I was orderd to stop breastfeeding while in a visit with my baby, due to a speculation made by the foster mom that my milk was making her 'lathergic.' I was getting ready to feed as I normally would do in a visit, when she decided to tell me that I am no longer allowed to breastfeed or give her breast milk. As any parent who supports breastfeeding could imagine, I did not take the news well. I immediatley balwed that my tie that only her and I have, had been stripped from me. So now it says in her latest notes on me that was angry and emotional! Heaven for bid, she couldnt have broken the news to me the day before when I had seen her, or even after my visit. I am so upset, A-because it's now been 7 weeks and our court date is just now approching to determine if they will be getting a 3 month order, or if she is being returned, but B-it is our god given right, it is what we have breasts for!!!!! Has anyone ever tried sewing MCFD for matters like this? I am really curious! Something should be done. How can they say "they are fallowing the best interest of the child" I found this site that I think everyone who comes across this link should read! http://www.notmilk.com/101.html
ReplyDeleteAnon from June 9 2011 --- No one may backtrack far enough to read your comment on this several month old post entry, but I will try to remember it and place it more currently as a question to be answered. Thanks for writing. Keep us informed as to how your case unfolds but respond to the most recent post when you do please.
ReplyDeleteThey had 3 children previously who were all in the MCFD's care and chose to have another baby? Not getting into details of their case on the previous children, but don't you people think maybe they should have focused on that before having another?
ReplyDeleteWell Anonymous, you fully entitled to an opinion. This one however, is five year late don’t you think? I don’t know to whom you think you are writing to ask the last question. Certainly I as the blog author had no control over Zabeth's and Paul’s birthing plans not did they need to consult me. As for them, who knows, perhaps they too had no control over the fourth child. And even so, what business was it of MCFD in February 2011 when the case already gone to a judge with regard to the custody and the futures of the three, whether this couple had another child. This was not a protection matter. There had never been a child neglect or a child endangerment or child harm charge laid against the couple. In fact MCFD was so far out on a medical limb that was already snapping under the weight of evidence against the SBS allegation that this was an abusive action by an agency that essentially did what it wanted to do because it could. The children were returned under a judge’s order and the family restored by August 2011, and they are living happily ever after, as they should have been without the initial lack of due diligence, and then the four years of malicious, discourteous treatment and the squandering of hundreds of thousands of citizen dollars on legal costs. MCFD is fortunate that the Baynes did not sue them for an astronomical amount as some recent cases have successful done. All that any try advocates have been saying all along is that MCFD and all of its employees should tighten up and live honourably by the ACT that empowers them.
ReplyDelete