Robert Freeman, journalist/reporter for the Chilliwack Progress has written a piece about this recent seizure of fiver hour old Josiah. After you read this, offer Mr. Freeman a word of appreciation at the email address he publishes.
Newborn taken from Hope couple
By Robert Freeman - Chilliwack Progress
Published: February 16, 2011 4:00 PM
Updated: February 16, 2011 4:55 PM
A premature baby born to former Hope couple Paul and Zabeth
Bayne was removed from their care by the B.C. child and family ministry
last Thursday.Published: February 16, 2011 4:00 PM
Updated: February 16, 2011 4:55 PM
"We're just devastated," Zabeth Bayne said in a telephone interview from her hospital room the next day.
"It was a traumatic and cruel experience, the way it was done," she said.
Ministry officials declined comment because the case is before the courts, but in an email explained that in any child protection case, the ministry's first priority is to make sure the child is not in danger.
"If it is deemed that a child needs protection, (the ministry), through its legislation, must go before the courts within seven days," the ministry said, where a judge will decide if the child should remain in ministry care or be returned to the parents.
But to the Baynes - and to supporters who contacted The Progress - removing the baby born prematurely put his health and safety at risk and robbed him of the chance to bond with his mother.
"How is this in the best interest of the child?" supporter Rachel Kragh asked in an email. "Anyone with an inkling of a brain knows that a baby needs that bonding time with his mom, especially if he is small and earlier than most normal births."
The Baynes' baby boy weighed in at 3 lbs 15 oz when born at 6:30 a.m. Thursday.
Zabeth Bayne said she pleaded with the social worker to let the baby stay with her until he gained weight.
"But (the social worker) said he had orders from above that he had to remove the baby from us," she said.
The couple, who now live in Surrey, have been in a much-publicized court fight since 2007 with the ministry for the return of their three older children after allegations were made that they had shaken a baby daughter, causing brain injury.
The couple claimed the child was injured after an older brother, a toddler at the time, tripped and fell on top of her.
Chilliwack provincial court judge Thomas Crabtree is expected to make a ruling on the case sometime this month.
Supporters of the couple accuse the ministry with dragging out the court case because the Baynes embarrassed officials by going to the media with their story.
rfreeman@theprogress.com
This kind of thing is going on all over the world, as the article below indicates:
ReplyDelete==================
Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?
Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
"This is an inverted pyramid," Yazbak says. "It's an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.
This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it's the other side that's making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.
It's obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they're literally convicting people before they're even accused. It's the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent."
A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their "businesses" going.
Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.
Again, the numbers tell the story:
In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation. Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS "investigations." Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.
But with a "more inclusive" definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.
But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn't explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.
So what can you or I do about it?
According to Hart, this is an issue that can't be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It's a national problem that's gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.
Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse "prevention" that I've talked about here.
In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I've included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.
While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it's possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the "immunity" clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can't do so without being held responsible.
-------------
Read the entire article here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/05/legal-child-abduction.aspx