4:31 PM - Many of you have expressed yourself today. 3,700 hits to this page so far today. 204,300 hits to the site in total over 18 months. You are paying attention.
10:00 PM - 4,200 hits. The increased awareness is only important as it carries the potential for inviting the legislator to launch policy review and inquiries into the quality of child protection of children in B.C.
Any indication, or conjecture, as to why there is yet another delay?
ReplyDeleteThis is good in one way as it gives us more time to notify the media.
Is there something happening on March 2, 2011 that will be a big news story (organizations and agencies will often defer their decisions etc., to a time when they know their story will be eclipsed by a bigger media story).
This is just too much! WHY does he need more time?? DOes he not understand what these parents are going through??
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can think of for using antiquated FAX for delivery instead of what is now the standard, Adobe Acrobat PDF releases, is the information is embarrassing to the government and delay, delay (and more delay) somehow benefits them before the general public sees the decistion.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken, there is a page count limit for faxing. (http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/fax/instructions/how.htm#limit) and (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/169_2009_01)
The page count of this ruling HAS to be over the limit. Pages get stuck, skewed, paper runs out, phone connection breaks -- you name it. I use an internet fax service to get around this problem (MyFax.com) so the file is delivered electronically. Adobe Acrobat Pro (not the free reader) will convert all the text to copy and pastable form.
If it was bad news, you can rest assured there would be no delay.
This really is beyond insane to continually delay this.
If nothing else, this false start may serve as an attempt to deflate any interest in the story.
ReplyDeleteThere may be a legitimate reason for the delay, but it may also be delayed because this is going to be a hugely important decision, and there will be, count on it, massive political manuevering in order to get the decision MCFD and the entire child protection industry (which is vast) desires.
I truly hope that there is a VERY GOOD REASON for another delay.
ReplyDeletethis is beyond frustrating for all of us-can you imagine what this must be like for Paul and Zabeth! Wow-may God continue to grant them grace and patience....
ReplyDeleteSo, the decision date has now been changed to the day before the next hearing for Josiah. Leaving Doug Christie or whomever is representing the Baynes, with even less time to prepare for Josiah's hearing, the preparation of which will no doubt be dependent upon the ruling of Judge Crabtree which is now on March 2.
ReplyDeleteWe are all speculating at this point about the reason for delay. I have a theory but it is without much substance. Sort of like the MCFD casework on the Baynes.
ReplyDeleteThe effect of this judgment will be worldwide, and will have profound implications for the child protection business - there must be massive influences at work here.
ReplyDeleteIf only we had some decent journalists working on this story, getting the inside scoop, because you can be sure that there is an inside scoop.
PS Anon 10:37 AM
ReplyDeleteYes, it is somewhat peculiar that the ruling on the three children will now come a day before the court appearance re: Josiah. However, the March 3rd court appearance is merely a moment to set a future date for a Presentation Hearing at which the Baynes would have opportunity for legal counsel to speak to the MCFD action and intention.
Our heart aches for the Baynes, you are in our prayers. Know that so many people are out there just wanting you to have your children back.
ReplyDeleteI keep inviting all of you to politely request journalists that you know to become interested in this story and to research and write it. Don't suggest an interview with the Baynes before a ruling comes down because it would be supremely unwise for them to comment to the press before they hear something.
ReplyDeleteI'm praying for this family will continue to do so. Would it help to get this story on Twitter?
ReplyDeleteBecky
Becky,
ReplyDeleteAnything you can do to make public this gross injustice will help the Baynes and any other families that are victims of child protection.
The extra days that Judge Crabtree is taking to hand down his decision can work in our favour - let's spread the word as much as possible, so that people realize MCFD is not working in the children's best interest, and that that is just an empty phrase they spout in order to keep and acquire power.
Becky,
ReplyDeleteUse #baynefmly and #mcfd and #bcpoli on twitter
One way that we can get the word out is to go to blogs where we can comment re: Christy Clark, new premier, etc., and either leave a link to Ron's blog or tell readers to google Paul and Zabeth Bayne (some blogs do not allow you to post a link, so you have to be careful that your comment doesn't get deleted because you have left a link in your comment).
ReplyDeleteMany people are going to be googling Christy Clark, so if you do so yourself and end up at blogs where you can comment, these are the blogs that people will be frequenting in the next few days. A
Any blog that is covering a hot topic that can be used to educate the public about the Bayne's case is a good place to comment. Try to tie the topic to the Bayne's case.
Since child protection involves so many other related topics (wasted tax dollars, abuse of government power, corruption, medical malpractice / negligence, etc., etc.), it is not hard to find a way to tie in the Bayne story to whatever the hot topic is. The problem is often discussing it in a manner that the public will understand. The best way to do this is to just state the facts and refer readers to Ron's blog. You will notice that comments regarding child protection and MCFD are often censored either at the time or after the fact.
Do not be discouraged, for eventually you will be successful and find forums so that you can educate the public regarding this injustice.
His Dishonor has certainly two versions ready, waiting for puppeteers' final order. THEY ALL FEAR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, INEVITABLY ESCALATING INTO VIOLENCE.
ReplyDeleteJosef,
ReplyDeleteIf enough people are made aware of, and protest, this issue, there will be change. Violence is unnecessary and undesirable. But making change will require work on our part. Politicians CAN be swayed, if there is a strong enough turnout.
Would Judge Crabtree be going over information received or having talks behind closed doors with Ministry people and their prospective bosses...the office of the Province of BC? The information is so clear. The only reason to stall, is to try as hard as they can to destroy families. There would not be so much effort needed to support truth and support families. That comes naturally and easily. If he is trying to find a way to destroy, it must be very difficult to find or it would be done. If he is trying to find truth it would be done.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is certain: this ruling will have massive implication for child protection, not only in BC, but around the world. If Judge Crabtree rules in the Baynes' favour, it will show how incredibly corrupt MCFD is. If Judge Crabtree choses to hide the truth, it will just come out that much stronger.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to hide the truth any longer. The cat is out of the bag. The longer they keep putting this off, the more the outrage grows.
And as far as the jurisdiction issue with Josiah goes, the judge (Arthur-Leung) could have, if she had chosen, done the right thing, and the lawful thing, and kept the actions as one, instead of having them in two different registries. These judges are a big part of the problem, and must be held accountable. The media isn't doing that, so we the people must. Especially when they are destroying families, and pretending that it's all done in the best interests of the child.
MEDIA CONTACT INFO, VANCOUVER:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/ca/54/2940
Could it be that Christie Clark needs a heads-up about the upheaval that has to happen in MCFD? Isn't the chief justice of the province a political appointment?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that could be the reason for the delay to the 28th. When the outsider who isn't even an MP, never mind not in the gov't caucus, wins the nomination, she won't have been in on the caucus conversations concerning the Baynes and Bruce McNeill Chilliwack MCFD fiasco. She says she wants more open gov't and she also wants to support families in BC.
I hope this is the case!
Ron; for heaven's sake. Enough of the conspiracy theory.Not only is the judiciary independent and impartial, but it must be seen to be so at all times. This is probably a simple human story of a missed deadline. Has any one of you never had that experience when you try to juggle to many things? I will be willing to bet that that Judge Crabtree knows perfectly well what disappointment this will bring to the Baynes and their supporters and I bet he has been sweating bullets last week to try to keep his word. He is probably just as disappointed as anyone else. Although I am an optimist, I am also a realist and I know that Murphy's law is always operational, so I was not surprised. My only worry is that Humeny and McNeill will find something nasty to do with the last two days.
ReplyDeleteI think we need a note of realism and optimism here so I am going to repeat my post of yesterday. I have not enough room here, so I will do a continuation.
I often when I see things like this in our government (and I see injustice and incompetence often) I wonder... Anarchy in not the solution... But is it a preferable problem?
ReplyDelete-Disgusted
Ron; before reposting my blog of yesterday, I want to correct some misunderstandings about presentation hearings. Just read sections 36,37 and 38 of the CF&CSA. Too bad the judge didn't because she seems to have played fast and loose with the Act. There is only one presentation hearing and there is no provisiion in the act for adjourning it.A judge cannot conduct a presenatation hearing without considering the evidence and must make an interim custody order and cannot simply leave the status quo by default. The judge must set a date for a protection hearing within 45 days and ten days written notice must be given.The presentation hearing is over. Next comes a protection hearing---the works. So a the court on Feb 3rd is not a presentation hearing and it is not a protection hearing,so it can only be a way of putting it in Crabtree's court and is at most a date to set a date. The judge can order the return of the child, without hearing further evidence.
ReplyDeleteNow to repeat yesterdays post.
MAKE BELIEVE
Today I am going to play a game of make believe. I am going to imagine that I am a very conservative judge preparing a judgement on the Bayne case. I say to myself that people do not realise how tough this family court stuff really is. Criminal court is a romp compared with this. I have to consider the law, the interaction between the child protection system and the judiciary. Not only do I have to consider the evidence, but I also have to think about the political consequences of my ruling.
The politics alone are a bain. I think that all judges must take a great deal on trust. With such long delays between presentations and hearings judges must trust in the competence and integrity of the ministry staff. If they did not, they would have to spend more time on presentations and interim access hearings. They would never get through their lists. I know that some people argue that more time at the beginning would save court time in the long run, but not with present court situation. I have heard that some of my brother judges may return children to posssibly risky situations because of the long delays. They may have lost trust in some ministry staff. Should I rule against the director I could seriously undermine that trust and I want to avoid that if possible. I know the news media are waiting for my judgement. They will feast on this case, whichever way I rule, so I shall just forget about them. If I return the Bayne children, there will be very uncomfortable consequences for the whole ministry, because so many people have condoned the action of the director and the social workers. So I must try as hard as I can to support the director’s case. I doubt whether the Baynes are unfit parents, but I must consider the greater good. ( “Greater good” is a term used by people who want to do the wrong thing and convince themselves that it is for the right reason. Eg invading Iraq, etc.)
Make believe conclusion
ReplyDeleteI must consider the law. It is too bad the act locks one into so many things and wastes so much time. The courts are so clogged that it is almost impossible to proceed at a reasonable pace and it is all very well to have guidelines that are almost impossible to follow. I hate when people remind me of section 4. How can I possibly enforce it? The allowance of hearsay took far too much time in the case. Between the law and the court scheduling, I really do not see how I could have moved this case ahead faster. One just has to learn to live with ignoring unrealistic guidelines, even when the guideline is the best interests of the children.
Now to consider the evidence. This really puts me in between a rock and a hard place. This case is about one issue and that is the evidence of Dr. Colbourne. When two social workers restated that in their affidavit at the last access hearing, they did the defence a favour. This made it difficult to consider anything except medical evidence. It is obvious that had Colbourne not given her opinion when she did the case would never have started and all the children would now be with the parents. All the other evidence becomes of no consequence if the medical evidence fails. It can be supplementary to the medical evidence, but it cannot prevail on its own. Whichever way I rule, I cannot escape dealing with the shaken baby issue. If I rule against the director, I must carefully address all the evidence given on both sides and all the medical research I have read. I must address every minute point raised by the prosecution and the response of the defence. I must in effect rule on two things. If I reject the shaken baby syndrome theory as valid, I must reject the evidence of Dr. Colbourne, because most of her opinion is based on it. Also I cannot reject her evidence without rejecting shaken baby theory. I have to be very careful on this because it could cause quite a stir. The children’s hospital staff will not be pleased as their other cases will be threatened. The Children’s minister will not be pleased, because she has put a lot of money into funding training in SBS issues.
On the other hand, If I grant a CCO I still have to do the same work. I must fully support shaken baby syndrome theory with detailed reasons. I must go through all the defence evidence and all the arguments of both sides and I must give reasons for rejecting the evidence of the defence experts in great detail. I must virtually reject the findings of the Goudge inquiry, and reject all the latest research by medical and biomechanical experts. I will probably be looked on as a dinosaur and I may get roasted in the news media. On the whole I just see too many hurdles to overcome to rule in favour of the director. It is an overwhelming task. Whatever I rule it will put the cat among the pigeons, so I may as well go what is best for the family. I do not believe for one minute that the Baynes would ever hurt a child, so I will do what is right and obvious and return the children.
I can appreciate the fact that people have deadlines they must juggle, but really, when such an important issue is at stake, why miss the deadline? Does Judge Crabtree miss other important deadlines? He should have made the time.
ReplyDeleteSo discouraging! Will pray that this delay works in their favour and soon the family will be renuited.
ReplyDeleteMy responses to Josef, Teya, the Anons that follow and Ray
ReplyDeleteJosef, you know that I care for you and what you have been through, so you will respect me when I say that from my standpoint, I do not agree civil disobedience and perhaps violence are either necessary or inevitable. Nor do I believe that insulting the Judge is productive, particularly when I have esteem for him, having watched him and listened to him.
I do believe that people, the masses must show politicians that we are not content with the present system.
Teya, cynicism can be misguiding. Not for a moment do I believe that Judge Crabtree is involved in collusion to affect his judicial decisions by permitting politicians or lawyers to influence him privately. Nor is he seeking to destroy families.
That's why I can agree with one Anonymous that Judge Crabtree's ruling in favour of the Baynes will be monumental in what it says about the Fraser Valley MCFD.
Having said all of the above, if on Wednesday, Crabtree has not returned the children, then my cynicism quotient will be peaking like some of yours, and the campaign against injustice will have just begun.
Thanks for the media contacts list.
It remains to be seen whether Christy Clark's speeches are comprised of rhetoric or sincerity.
One thing that I am not cynical about, and that I do believe, is that politicians will always respond if enough people make their voices heard. Now is the time to speak, write, telephone, fax, however we can get the word out.
ReplyDeleteDelays are certainly par for the course. My gut feeling is that these delays is a good sign towards a decision in the Baynes favour.
ReplyDelete---------
Very interesting media contacts link posted by 1:31 PM.
( http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/ca/54/2940 )
I clicked on Georgia Straight and it gives the political bent of the publication (in this case, Liberal: "The Georgia Straight Editorial Staff appear to be dominated by extreme left wing eco-activists who obsessively control the content and restrict any opinions that express opposing views.")
It would be instructive to see who covers the story after being notified. I have a suspicion MCFD and the Liberal Government would like it to be unnoticed and fade quickly from people's memories. It can take quite a skilled public relations effort (or company) to make sure this does not happen.
A good way is to post permanent information on a static website so at least it can be searched by others who need to use this case as a precident for their own case. The Blog format has a limitation in that there is no real user interface for navigation. Which of the hundreds of blog entries and thousands of comments are the most relevant? It is a difficult business, publishing information in a way that it does not become viewed as information noise.
For example, the Rahman shaken baby case case seems very relevant and very well funded with a great outcome, yet it appears their website fizzled fairly quickly after the family had their children returned.
Jensen was quick to dismiss this "opinion" reference. I don't see that this case made much of a dent in dispelling SBS as a valid diagnosis. This is what we want the Baynes case to do. Make a dent.
While Ray is correct in that there is no provision for a presentation hearing to be adjourned, it happens every week. Sit in on one MCFD court day (Thursday in Surrey) and you will see it happen first hand. Dates for protection hearings should be set that very day. Adjournment is just a waste of court time and parents money (lawyers aren't cheap).
ReplyDeleteMy purely speculative reason for Judge Crabtree's delayed opinion is that he had to make modifications to it to include the exigent circumstances regarding Josiah.
I have two observations about blatant contradictions by MCFD (and CPS as a whole), but I will save them for tomorrow as today, the blog posters are clearly focussed on the delay.
CPE
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking that you may be correct re: your opinion for the delay
Does anyone know if Judge Crabtree could overrule Judge Arthur-Leung in terms of the jurisdiction issue? Could Judge Crabtree make an Order that all the Bayne children go back to their parents?
ReplyDeleteAnon February 28, 2011 3:56 PM
ReplyDeleteThanks for all of the healthy counsel for continuing effective exposure to this case and that to which it points for change to our system
Can someone comment on whether the Baynes still have Wednesday visits with their children? ie. Will they be visiting their children (or soon to see them) when the news comes? I am just curious.
ReplyDeletewow, I am stunned by how many think there is a conspiracy between the judge and MCFD, lawyers and government etc. Lots of strange and paranoid seeming theories out there. Also what seems strange to me is the fact that the Baynes have been told by Ray Ferris and by you Ron NOT to approach MCFD and work with them to have their children returned? I dont get it, why is that? They could still maintain their innocence even while working with MCFD could they not? I know if it were my kids whether I was innocent or not I would do anything to get them back! Who cares what others think? And one more thing...the dressing in Black to show support...ummm, not sure why you would choose such a dark and ominous color and not somnething bright and hopeful like yellow or anything else, but black? hmmmm almost like a cult!!
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about this today-given that up until last week, Judge Crabtree would only be ruling on the original case (including 3 of the 4 Bayne children)-it seems reasonable to think that he may be delaying today's decision so that he can include Josiah's case with the original one. I'm suspecting that if he were going to merge the two cases together, he would need time to get that together. Thus, Wed, March 2, being the new date for the decision. Keep in my mind, this is just a synopsis on my part, but a hopeful one that will end this once and for all! Again-our prayers are with Paul, Zabeth and family...may you be reunited very soon!
ReplyDeleteFor Anon February 28, 2011 6:54 PM
ReplyDeleteYes the Baynes continue to have 6 hrs of visitation in their own home and 3 hrs on Wednesday afternoons in another location.
Hi Anon February 28, 2011 7:40 PM
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that a few people speak of conspiracy. Such is the experience of loss and helpless and the sense of unpitying treatment at the hands of people from whom all of us should be able to expect courtesy and respect and fairness when dealing even with the serious issues that revolve around suspected abuse or neglect of children.
Ray's and my counsel when asked by the Baynes is a matter of confidentiality. However, I will say that when Zabeth was in her late stages of pregnancy and knowing that she had a history of early births, it appeared to me both thoughtless and sinister that MCFD Director and staff pushed for meetings with respect to a plan for the coming child. I was willing to concede that this could be deemed within their range of responsibility, yet the unrelenting pressure and the threats about apprehending the child upon its birth put her and the baby at risk. For that reason it seemed foolish for her to place herself in what has always been an antagonistic environment. Neither Ray nor I have ever counselled the Baynes to not meet with the MCFD regarding the three children. Ray would say that mediation is a valid approach to solution. But you would be misinformed to assume that MCFD was accommodating to the Baynes rather than combative. Our reservations came with respect to her being coerced to meet when she was ready to deliver a baby. Black? Who knows. Wouldn't have been my first choice either. But someone in the network of online interaction suggested it and people bought it for the sake of solidarity. I said OK but come Monday 28th I would wear yellow to celebrate. I still expect to wear bright canary on Wednesday the 2nd of March. And wouldn't you agree, that the Baynes have done almost everything two people can do to get their children back? Oh well, short of admitting to a crime that they didn't commit!
And by the way T, why would you be thinking thoughts like those? Where did you get your information? Come on, help these poor people out.
ReplyDeleteAnon at February 28, 2011 7:40 PM:
ReplyDeleteBayne supporters, a cult, just because they wear black? That sounds a little like conspiracy theory itself. Black is probably the one colour that everyone has in their wardrobe. This 3.5 years haven't exactly been a picnic for the Baynes - they've lost everything - children, home, careers, saviings, grand piano, you name it. Hardly a cheerful thing, I'd say. But you can bet that they and others will be celebrating when they get their children back, no worries there.
As far as their refusal to meet with MCFD, well, I completely agree that this would have done absolutely nothing to help their cause and only introduced another level of stress into their lives.
Just because people are innocent doesn't mean they will be treated as such. Any sophisticated person these days knows that you can't just depend upon the fact that you are innocent. The state has so much power and so many resources and is generally very determined to win, even by playing dirty tricks. Don't take my word for it, visit The Innocence Project website, where you will discover that the main reasons for wrongful convictions are not that the accused are guilty, or that they don't co-operate, as you suggest they should.
MCFD has way too much power and they've been throwing it around for far too long. Only because of the good heart and highly developed sense of justice of Doug Christie, as well as supporters such as Ray Ferris and Ron Unruh have the Baynes managed to hang in there this long. Even with this level of assistance, MCFD still seems determined to destroy them. I mean really, we are talking about people who took a premature baby, a few days old, less than 4 pounds, out of the hospital and into foster care, when it was completely unnecessary. They knew that they were placing the baby at risk when they did this, and that is why they had to do testing that they did for one hour or whatever it was. Why should Paul and Zabeth work with these kind of people? They have proven their character.
Besides, Paul and Zabeth are going to win this case; they don't need to kowtow to the Ministry. Especially after what the Ministry has done to them. I hope they never come after your children, because just being innocent isn't going to cut it.
I am sick at heart. I turned on my computer thinking we would finally read the words the Bayne family is back together. What I'm feeling the Baynes's have to be feeling a thousand times worst. I do not have a good feeling about this delay. I live in the US and we have all heard horror stories concerning family services, however, this is the most outrageous. I am praying.
ReplyDelete