The beautiful day became a lonely day.
Paul and Zabeth Bayne have experienced disappointment today and they
are also concerned. Today was visitation day, six hours with all four
children was the expectation. That's not the way it turned out.
While every effort may be used in the foster home to protect Josiah, Zabeth and Paul, because they feel so helpless, continue to be
concerned about two week old Josiah also residing in this foster home
because of the proximity to these flu germs. They know from prior
experience that premature children have reduced immunity.
If anything happens to Josiah, the blame falls on MCFD. And the hospital staff who worked with MCFD. There is no way that tiny baby should have been moved out of the hospital, it was just vindictive.
ReplyDeleteWe'll keep praying for this family, especially little baby Josiah.
ReplyDeleteDid the parents get to see Josiah today?
ReplyDeleteThe question you have to ask yourself is this...would the hospital have released Josiah on that date if being released into the care of his parents? The answer would be yes. This is not an MCFD decision. The MCFD decision would be where to place Josiah. Beyond that it is only a guess if the hospital knew there were sick children in the home, if the hospital knew and deemed it appropriate, or what measures are being taken to keep Josiah away from the sick children - and if that is even necessary. Unless you are a physician, or more specifically a paediatrician I'd suggest it's inappropriate to assume anything re: the vulnerability of the baby. Google searches and "I heard once on Dr. Oz" doesn't count. Unless you know the specifics that were discussed by the hospital staff and care team there it is inappropriate to be upset for any reason other than the belief Josiah should be with his parents. That is an individual choice and open for your own feelings and statements. The medical treatment is not.
ReplyDeleteZabeth and Paul were able to visit with Josiah, Kent and Baden until Baden became unwell after 2 hrs and all were taken to their foster home. Bethany was not well and didn't come.
ReplyDeleteCertainly our emotional bias interprets the outcome as MCFD being unnecessarily eager to make this physical move, and hospital acquiescing in good faith and perhaps not insisting that a few more days might help Josiah become a wee bit more able to make it in the wider world.
Anon 7:04, I know you are seeking to strike a balanced view. To your initial supposition I simply say, perhaps. Perhaps the hospital would have released Josiah so soon to the parents. It makes little difference now yet I wonder whether MCFD pressure (as in phone calls) may have sped the consent. We express concerns for Josiah in a home where other children have colds/flu but you are correct that we do not know what precautions are being taken to protect Josiah. I have only heard people expressing concerns rather than making accusations.
Certainly our emotional bias interprets the outcome as MCFD being unnecessarily eager to make this physical move, and hospital acquiescing in good faith and perhaps not insisting that a few more days might help Josiah become a wee bit more able to make it in the wider world.
Unless and until people realize the nature of evil, and call it what it is, nothing will change. Trying to sugar coat all this does not help anyone or anything. This little baby is suffering deeply and will suffer for the rest of his life unless we act stronger.
ReplyDeleteGiving MCFD and the hospital the benefit of the doubt even when it is so obvious that they have acted in a manner that is so contrary to the best interests of Josiah is not only weak and cowardly, it causes great harm.
We have to start having some guts. or not only Josiah will suffer, but all children. This is a ploy of Satan or whomever or whatever you want to call it, but being tolerant and nice is not helping anything.
Quit turning the other cheek, because it's the children - not your cheek - that are paying the price.
MCFD and all other child protection agencies will keep coming after you Christians if you keep acting like the government and all authority is basically good. Take a good look around. Corruption, and Satan or whomever or whatever you want to call it, is everywhere. Please quite appearing to be so weak. It only invites bullies. I know you mean well, but it's not you that's going to do the bulk of suffering, it's Josiah and little children like him.
There is no "good faith" in a hospital that releases a baby that is less than 4 pounds to the custody of the Ministry. He was taken away from his Mother and his Mother's milk and his Father and all their love. There was no good faith. Please!
ReplyDeleteWell Anon 8:46 PM
ReplyDeleteI will assume you were writing specifically to me. I am probably not wrong.
Staying rationale and reasonable should not be confused with weakness or cowardice.
Perhaps you could aim your guns at the right targets.
Clearly you present yourself as a Christian but I am not a fan of dying by friendly fire, so if you want to shoot, have the courtesy of giving your name as I have stated mine.
So let me get this straight:
ReplyDeleteDuring a visit, a child "became" sick, so the correct course of action was to send him back home to be in the same home as a premature four pound at-risk infant to solve the problem?
Bull. My read is the Ministry strongly suspects the outcome Monday; this is just the last shot they have at inflicting a jab at the parents. If I'm wrong, then there should be a declaration the lost visitation time would be restore. If not, it's Bull.
It would seem to me the best course of action from a liability standpoint would be to return the infant to the hospital first, or AT LEAST another uninfected home. Why not just let the parents come to the foster home? I did this all the time when the MCFBastards had my kids.
It strikes me that placing the infant with his siblings is more a show for the watching public, as is "see, we are keeping the children together for their best interests, see how considerate a Ministry we are?."
I could certainly go on with comparing proportion of MCFD actions; first placing a premature infant in an infected home, then deciding to cut short a visit to quickly return a newly infected children to the home of that infant.
Okay Anon Joe, I hear what you are saying, but let's simply say that I don't agree with you on all points. Where I agree is in standing strong with resolve and compelling accountability from those who serve our children as well as us in doing their mandated work and service. Where I disagree is in approaching that strength position by calling an entire ministry 'culprits,' because, candidly, I think one loses credibility. Nor, do I concur with you that herding all these service providers into a convenient group called 'for profit' workers accomplishes any productive end. All of that loses the focus and the audience. You wind up quarelling with the other sympathizers over semantics which weakens any attempt to become collectively stronger.
ReplyDeleteI would like to thank the Anonymous poster for pointing out reality from fiction. Clearly from his viewpoint (unclouded by emotion), he is able to discern what is right and wrong for a tiny infant unlike us emotional messes.
ReplyDeleteJust so I'm clear -- MCFD does not actively influence or lobby medical staff to do things that normally they wouldn't do. This is complete hogwash and the Anonymous writer knows it. I have documentation showing secret meetings with medical staff. Medical staff being directed to look for evidence that confirms their (MCFD) suspicions. I could go on, but I won't because our Anonymous (who sounds suspiciously like the SW's devoid of emotion in this case) writer wouldn't accept it until I provide the proof. Unfortunately for them I don't give documentation to Anonymous posters.
I would suspect that MCFD gave all sorts of reassurances that the MCFD and the foster home were more than equipped to the care of this very tiny newborn. The testing to see if the baby could handle the ride in the car seat is a clear example of MCFD influence. I'm also sure Mr. Humeny's decision that the baby could not have expressed breast milk was solely a medical decision (sarcasm -- just in case you missed it). So "Anonymous", give us these facts you infer you know, or else yours is just one more "Oprah" opinion.
I agree with Ron- painting the entire child welfare system and individuals within in it as "evil" or "corrupt" takes away from a more reasoned and thoughtful analysis in respect to this specific situation. Like all systems it has flaws, and it is reasonable to advocate and critique when there is a perception of wrong doing, as many are rightfully doing in the case of the Bayne family.
ReplyDeleteIt is not however, a tool of "Satan" as suggested. There are many situations were the intervention of MCFD has saved children from dangerous situations, though this is rarely reported in the media. Think of the many meth labs and grow-ops in
the Fraser Valley, or incidents of family violence, is the Ministry "evil" in these cases for intervening?
It is valid to feel compassion for the Bayne family and to advocate for them, however, it is troubling to note that one of the people leaving
comments here uses this concern as platform to provide hyperbolic and conspiracy laden notions that paints an entire system with vast generalizations.
This is not about "sugar coating" things as suggested, but rather about being a reasonable person and recognizing that you can simply disagree with people
without having your discourse deteriorate into unhelpful rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
Just a quick comment for now--more later. I will compose it as I swim boring laps.
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessary to pick on this that or the other point to show the iniquity of the ministry. Just look at the big picture.The ministry has shattered this family for three years and bereft those poor children of a home for three times as long as the CF&CSA is supposed to allow. They have bankrupted the parents, forced them to sell their home and stacked the hearing with spurious witnesses. With the collusion of judges, prosecutors and some defence lawyers, they have prolonged things beyond all reason. What does it take to result in the ruling coming over six months after the last evidence was heard? Don't fiddle with the details, but look at the big picture. With a children's ministry that is this hostile,is it any wonder that the best interests of children become of no consequence and the hostility is shown in many small ways?
Just take the statement of Humeny to the RCY advocate that he could not guarantee the integrity of expressed breast milk. He backed off this after pressure from the advocate. This postion gives us insight into the warped minds of Humeny and his puppet master.
For the information of readers, the social worker has a duty of care to the children, the parents and the foster parents. The duty of care to the children is unchanged by the case being before court and the duty of the advocate to monitor the duty of care does not cease. Many officials will say they cannot comment on a case that is before court. This is a half truth. They can and should comment on matters involving the duty of care. I wrote to the advocate to remind them of this about the milk issue.
I know Paul and Zabeth well through business and now personally as well. They are honest and very responsible people. I know them and have seen them react in very difficult situations. They are not short tempered or angry people. They are thinking and caring people. I would stake my life on the fact that they would not hurt a child. I also know the grandparents of these wrongly abducted children and they are caring, bright and reasonable people. Human Resources should back off now and save face as best they can, then this system needs to be disbanded and bring some more appropriate way of taking care of children in distress. These children are now in distress and it will have changed their lives ( not for good) for the rest of their lives. How can we stand by and let this happen to 4 beautiful children who have caring, loving parents to care for them and enrich their lives the way good parents and grandparents do? Agnes Mary Stevens, Abbotsford, B.C.
ReplyDeleteI did not read all the comments, but I wanted to respond to one near the top saying that the hospital would have released Josiah home to his parents in this same time frame and so it is not risky for his health to be in a foster home. Fact: if Josiah had been released to his HOME, he would be breastfed, receiving all-important antibodies to these very same sicknesses swirling about and therefor he would be much more able to combat these sicknesses. Zabeth has no guarantee that they are feeding her milk to him, as she was not permitted to feed him her expressed milk from a bottle.
ReplyDelete