Saturday, February 19, 2011

IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN / Part 444 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

To Anonymous February 17, 2011 11:59 AM who inferred some failed responsibility by Zabeth because of Josiah's small size and weight …. and implied awareness of nutritional neglect for at least the two oldest boys when the Baynes did have custody three years ago, I suggest that you have made a presumptive judgement that the boys' appearance to you back then is synonymous with deficiency of care. As to Josiah, it should interest you to know that Zabeth had an enfarcted placenta and a two vessel umbilical cord. Apparently the two vessel cord is common and associated with small babies and the placenta was associated with high blood pressure which she started to have mid pregnancy.
Umbilical cord abnormalities can be detected ultrasonographically and may be associated with fetal anomalies, chromosome abnormalities, and potential complications during pregnancy. The normal umbilical cord contains 2 arteries and 1 vein. The umbilical vein carries oxygenated blood from the placenta to the left portal vein in the fetal liver. The 2 umbilical arteries are continuous with the internal iliac arteries and carry deoxygenated blood from the fetus to the placenta. The most common abnormality of the umbilical cord is a single umbilical artery (SUA), which occurs in 0.5% to 2.5% of pregnancies. This finding is sometimes referred to as a 2-vessel cord. The loss of 1 umbilical artery likely occurs secondary to thrombotic atrophy of a previously normal artery. Less likely, the loss may result from primary agenesis of the artery. It is the left umbilical artery that is more commonly absent. The clinical significance of an SUA is not completely understood, and there are many different reports regarding outcomes of fetuses with this finding.

The term infarct usually signifies an area of dead tissue. Extensive placental infarcts are sometimes present in stillbirths and in instances of premature separation of the placenta from its implantation site in the wall of the uterus.
Notwithstanding, the Social Worker marched into the hospital uninformed, not asking necessary questions, and expected to seize the newborn several hours old and place him in the care of a foster parent. This is the circus atmosphere in which the MCFD Fraser Valley group have operated throughout a three year ordeal with this family. And they have done so by relying upon uniformed and bogus reports such as the implications you have made.
Zabeth was in a wheelchair some of the time to avoid premature delivery when she needed to get around, but she took care of herself, she ate well, and she was under the care of an OB every two weeks and often more frequently than that. She was extremely conscientious about caring for herself and her baby.
Anonymous, here is what you wrote. I include it here so others may know why I answered this way.
“Why was this baby born near his due date so small? This mother knows she is at risk of premature labor which luckily in Josiah's case didnt happen. Wouldn't this mother be doing all she could do to give birth to a healthy baby boy? Vitamins, supplements, healthy food etc. 3 lbs and 2 weeks early? Why? Why when in the care of their parents were these children so unhealthy? Regardless of whats going on, these are facts. Why have all 4 children presented early on as being underweight and why when they entered care did they start to gain weight and become healthier? ( I know you have an argument for that but poor record keeping on both sides is likely to blame) There is so much more to this than innocent parents claiming they did no wrong. Premature or not, 3 years ago those were some very unhealthy looking little people! That's poor parenting. If you love your children, whether you are naive or new to parenting there is soooo much info out there, ignorance is not an excuse! If they cant provide a healthy life for their kids then they shouldn’t have them! Healthy eating is not too much to ask and it isn’t excusable.”


  1. I tend to agree with the other poster whose response to this mean-spirited and rather ignorant attack on Zabeth should be ignored. Why, as he or she put it, bother feeding the trolls.

  2. Moving on.

    Re: Public Relations. It might be useful for readers to get in touch with staff at and let them know that a landmark decision is about to be handed down in Canada (which will also have implications for US cases), and that the Baynes are being subject to even more cruel treatment after the birth of their baby. is a a very organized, well run, politically active group of professionals who are committed to protecting parental rights and who would very likely be interested in supporting the Baynes, if only by posting some info on their site about the Bayne's case.

    Here is the contact info for ParentalRights:
    P.O. Box 1090
    Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
    Phone: 540-751-1200
    Fax: 540-338-8606


    Media Contact:

    Rebekah Pizana
    National Coalition Director

    I suggest emailing both email addresses (info@parentalrights and Rebekah).

    We all need to work together; parents from all countries, working together, can gain power, courage, and insight from each other.

    Here is the website:

  3. Here is a letter on the Canada Court Watch website, written to a hospital and board of directors, putting them on notice regarding the use of unregistered social workers.

    The same might be done in BC. Parents and legal counsel should not pussy foot around, but rather assert their rights and let the hospital and staff know that they will be held accountable. A letter from a lawyer can often do wonders.

    I am unaware as to what if any illegal practice Lorne Humeny is engaged in. The business with the birth registration may in fact be a violation of some law. If at all possible this possible violation of the law, in whatever manner, should be looked into in great detail, and dealt with accordingly.

    It is very possible that the Bayne's hospital, and other hospitals in BC are unwittingly opening up themselves to massive liability by accepting the authority of individuals such as Lorne Humeny. Never assume that they are on top on things, because the left hand often has no clue what the right hand is doing in these institutions. However, if the right people are notified, in the correct manner, changes - in favour of parents - can be made.

    And it certainly seems that any hospital who is collaborating with an individual who is operating outside his authority in order to deny a mother her rights and an infant his rights, and the health benefit of those rights, would be subject to liability. A firm hand may be what is needed here, rather than cowtowing to authority. That obviously hasn't worked in the past.

  4. I wish I had more time, but if someone would help out here and review this Act, they might find something that makes Humeny in violation of the law:

  5. For Anon 8:07 PM
    Your reference and comments are extremely helpful and important. Thanks.

  6. Victims of child protection intervention will recognize that similar comments from such 'trolls' appear in reports to court. Child removing MCFD vultures exist because of these anonymous reports that few citizens would give a second thought to.

    Social workers twist the information and create cooberation to build a story. Enough doubt is eventually created to ensure judges agree to allow MCFD to retain children.

    Recall that the Hoffman's in the Baynes case made a nearly identical child protection report that the Bayne's two boys appeared thin and malnourished. Then we discover the Hoffman's less than stellar motive for making the reports in the first place. Parents rarely get to confront their accusers in these matters.

    Gulbot and Humey responded in court, they are not in the business of questioning the veracity or motivation of callers. They simply 'investigate.'

    If I recall the resulting social worker testimoney correctly, MCFD attended the Baynes home based on this one report from the Hoffmans and offerred 'services.' This became part of the derogatory record of the Baynes parenting ability.

    This is the reality of how child protection runs. If police feilded such calls on a regular basis, they would become angry at callers and threaten them with a mischief charge. MCFD's large budget and parent's fear of this government depends on such frvolous calls. The organization salivates with each intake they get.

    These "trolls" are taken seriously by MCFD. They accept such information at face value, then they use their skills to buid up and embellish the information.

  7. Trolls' reports of child abuse are taken very seriously by MCFD, because it suits their purpose - taking children from biological parents. However, when someone reports child abuse of a child in "care," it is routinely ignored or sweep under the carpet. This may lead one to believe that child protection agencies don't really care about abused children, and if they did, why don't they do more to protect the ones that are in their care?

    The astronomical numbers of children who are abused and murdered, while in what we call "care," suggests that child protection agencies pick and chose their investigations on the basis of how lucractive it will be for them. There is no profit in removing a child from care and returning him or her to her parents. There is no profit in removing a child in care and relocating him or her. On the contrary, these actions cut into profit (or resources, to those who may object to the term profit).

  8. So thin children are now a reason they should be stolen? Craziness. I can not understand how social workers can go so far from God in their efforts to guard their egos. Just say sorry, correct and continue. Don't destroy and terrorize just to prove you are right. The SW ego is more focused on being protected than on protecting children. Put on the big girl panties people. Stop bullying to protect your ego.

  9. There is mention of 'private hospitals' in the above bclaws link. I wonder if such a facility could simply refuse access by a social worker who wants access to patients and their children. Public hospitals certainly have embedded protection staff who work with MCFD. Perhaps the hospital could be sued for doing the bidding of MCFD illegally.

    School districts have guidelines for allowing child protection people onto their school grounds for purposes of interrogating children without parent's knowledge; they are supposed to notify parents unless social workers indicate this would disrupt the investigation (so, parents are never notified). Kids have rights and should have representation, because they have no idea what they say or what social workers see can result in their removal from their home and family.

    Keep an eye on
    I recall reading on court watch Canada a child was essentially detained illegally for some time in school at the behest of child protection social workers. This sort of thing happens regularly.

    There is likely some legal avenue parents should be able to use to counterattack this sort of behaviour by MCFD.

  10. Canada Court Watch website has a wealth of info, including a section where you can provide information and read about social workers (kind of like Rate your MD). You can also find information about recording, which is essentially when dealing with lying social workers.

  11. Message from Attila L. Vinczer
    Re: The Importance of Tape Recording & the C.A.S. (Children's Aid Society, which is Ontario's version of MCFD)


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