Saturday, February 19, 2011

SPREAD THE WORD / Part 442 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I told you yesterday in Part 439, that I am back. I have been away for three weeks. I knew that I might miss developing events at this crucial time both in Zabeth's pregnancy and in the timing for the court case ruling by Judge Crabtree. I have returned to the grim news of baby Josiah's apprehension by the regional workers of MCFD under the Director's orders. Together with you and the Baynes I await the Judge's ruling between now and the end of this month.

The Case: Paul and Zabeth Baynes three children are in the care of the Ministry of Children since October 2007.
Case Premise: MCFD posits that a doctor's diagnosis of shaken baby explains the youngest child's injuries sustained when she was several weeks old while the Baynes offered that one of their toddler son's impacted the infant in a fall while the baby was blanketed on the floor.
Case Status: Court case is completed and we are waiting Judge Thomas' ruling either to return the children to the Baynes or to grant permanent Ministry care and inevitable adoption.
Case Addition: Zabeth conceived a fourth child before the end of the court case, and MCFD waited until the infant's birth and five hours later took custody of Josiah just days ago.
Case Hearing: MCFD is required to present their latest seizure rationale to court and this is scheduled now for Feb 24th.

While MCFD is entirely within its mandate and mission to have effected this, the action offends the sensibilities of fair-minded people. Having now returned, I intend to cover this latest development in the Bayne Family saga from numerous angles and to write frequently EACH DAY. Stay tuned, glued, to this GPS site, offer comments, take action by writing to MLA's, senior government officials, news media offices and journalists. With courtesy exhort the recipients of your messages to take an interest in this family and their plight. While many will state an ability to engage a before-the-court case, or otherwise vacate responsibility, the exposure of this case to a widening audience will benefit the Baynes and if not them, then eventually some other families. I am still hopeful that Judge Crabtree has judged the Baynes more accurately than has the MCFD Fraser Valley contingent.


  1. Anyone who missed the recent CNN / Anderson Cooper report on the couple who were devastated but fought back very successfully against false claims of Shaken Baby Syndrome can read the transcript here:

    The segment on Shaken Baby Syndrome starts at:
    01:37:52, so just scroll down to this time stamp.

    This couple is now suing for $1,000,000.00 USD. The same should be possible here. And maybe it will be in years to come. But the point is, people from all walks of life are beginning to realize, Shaken Baby Syndrome is just another way that child protective services takes children from loving and innocent parents.

  2. CNN / Anderson Cooper - "Couple Wrongly Accused of Child Abuse" (i.e., Shaken Baby Syndrome)

    Watch this recent report and see how a couple was victimized by child protective services but ultimately were successful. This couple is now suing for $1,000,000.00.

  3. I am going to be lazy today. Instead of writing a new mail, I am going to copy an email I sent to Zabeth and the rep for children and youth.
    Thank you for your email about the continued interference with the proper feeding of Josiah. Before proceeding with what I suggest the Rep can do, I will explain a couple of things for your mutual guidance. Many people in public positions will tell you that they can do nothing because a case is before court. Mary Polak has already given you the standard phrase and she tells you the truth, but in fact only half the truth. First of all let us look at the legal situation between you and the ministry social worker and your son. Yes, it is true that a social worker must act to protect a child if he has good reason to believe that child is in danger. However, his legal duty is to ensure the safety of the child by the least disruptive method possible. This means that he must actively explore and seek to implement a less disruptive plan, because he must swear to a court that he has done so. Obviously, Humeny totally failed to do this and was derelict in his duty and abusive of his authority. Your child was quite safe for weeks and apprehension was completely unnecessary. (I have already scathed him on the blog for this.)
    About not intruding in cases before court. It is inappropriate that a politician should try to influence the decision of a judge, especially after all the evidence has been heard. However, certain other officials have responsibilities to your child and they should not neglect to fulfill them just because a child has been taken into care. In fact Josiah is not before the court in any meaningful sense of the word. In that first week he was in that limbo situation between apprehension and presentation and the legal rights of the social worker are very limited in that time. No order has since been made. There are certain situations where it entirely appropriate for the RCY to intervene assertively. You need to understand your rights and duties here. You and Paul are still the legal guardians of all your children and will remain so unless a court removes those rights. The ministry does not gain guardianship by interim custody, nor even by a temporary custody order. They can act as guardian in a limited way if the welfare of the child demands it.
    As guardians you have both the right and duty to protect your child and to protect his best interests. Along with interim custody, the children's ministry has a duty of care. That duty of care is well established and it is why Ms. Turpel-Lafond has the right to ensure that the duty of care is being followed. She has a mandate to protect the rights of foster children. This duty of care does not cease when a child is before court, or in temporary care. You too as guardians have a right to monitor that duty of care and to demand help when the duty is neglected. That is why you have a right as guardian to demand that your son be given the best standard of care and treatment prescribed by the physician. The social worker has neither the right nor the competence to disrupt that care. If the physician wants you to give breast milk to your son, directly or by pumping then that must be done. The social worker has no right to interfere nor to put those paranoid restrictions on you. Mr. Robinson should tell him in no uncertain terms to butt out. His duty of care to a child in care demands that he do so.

  4. Duty of care continued
        Another point. When Humeny appropriated the birth registration papers provided by the hospital, he had no right to do so. You did not know that he had no right to register the birth of the child. As guardians that is your prerogative and nobody else can do it. As I told you, all he got was a set of forms and you can easily get another set. I consider his behaviour extremely unethical, but unfortunately ethics seem to be in rather short supply in the Fraser reason.
        One last point, one cannot separate what goes to court from general standards of practice. When Dutoit tells you that she cannot interfere with the court process, that is a total evasion and distortion. Just as she is responsible to uphold a duty of care and that means to both the parents and the children of foster children. (And to  the foster parents.) She is responsible for the standards of practice which decide what is placed before the court. If she finds those standards were lacking and a less disruptive plan should have been sought, she can require her staff to be accountable for reviewing that decision. If an action is found to be at an unacceptable standard, she can direct a withdrawal from court. It is difficult to overrule the statutory power of a director, but it has been done. It is much easier to send you a letter full of platitudes.


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