Wednesday, February 23, 2011

TOMORROW IS COURT DAY AGAIN / Part 448 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The court order hearing sought by the Ministry to take custody of then 14 day old Josiah, is scheduled for Thursday, February 24th at 9:30 am at the Surrey Provincial Court. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE BABY FROM HOSPITAL AND PLACED HIM WITH FOSTER PARENTS. YESTERDAY WAS PAINFUL FOR THE BAYNES IN MEETING WITH PEDIATRICIAN ETC.

Daddy Paul and Josiah
The author of the supporting affidavit for the custody of Josiah is the same social worker, Loren Humeny, who has been charged with responsibility for this case for the past three and one half years. He was delegated by the Director last year to write the affidavit that reasoned for the continued care order for Josiah's three older siblings. We have an unconfirmed hint that this week Judge Crabtree who oversaw the trial will be hearing this one too. He has heard before, everything that is contained within the newest affidavit. He doesn't have to hear it again. However, if the forecasted snow doesn't stop Doug Christie, the presiding judge can expect to hear from Doug, who will unquestionably make it clear that there is no new evidence. Certainly none that pertains to Josiah.

Read my words. NO NEW EVIDENCE. Josiah will be 14 days old tomorrow. He was only seven days old last Thursday when the affidavit was scheduled to be ruled upon by another judge. It should be assumed that it was penned some hours/days before that. During that first week of the child's life there would have been little opportunity for contact between parents and child and whatever contact there was, occurred within the careful view of attendant hospital staff. There is no evidence that concerns Josiah that Mr. Humeny can present in support of this order. If in fact Judge Crabtree is presiding tomorrow, it will be most interesting to hear what he does with this order application. Will he grant the custody order based upon that affidavit information? If he does, should the MCFD assume that he will similarly rule in its favour concerning the other three children on Monday? Will he himself decide that the ruling concerning Josiah will be rolled into his ruling concerning the three children, since the supporting evidence is identical? Numerous spin-off questions come to mind, too many to cite here.

Zabeth and her new baby
On Mr. McNeill's behalf, Loren must rely upon the same supportive material used for the CCO case for the three siblings. Yes, that's correct. The 'stuff' upon which the judge is expected to rule on Thursday with respect to Josiah is the same 'stuff' upon which Judge Thomas Crabtree will rule no later than Monday, the 28th, four days later with respect to the other three children. That's the substance of the MCFD allegation that Paul and/or Zabeth are a risk to their children. It is no surprise that the judge last week in adjourning the hearing for a week when MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen and social worker Loren Humeny did not make an appearance, said that the Josiah hearing should be heard by Judge Crabtree. And now we understand Judge Crabtree will be present. Well we hope that may be the case. Certainly no other judge would presume to rule on the same material upon which the Chief Justice of B.C. will rule days later (28th). Judge Crabtree has been deliberating for the past six months. In any case, what mysterious strategy it is to press forward with the order application for Josiah when the Chief Justice may make a landmark decision that explodes the CCO application and Shaken Baby Syndrome and MCFD practice concerning 'the Bayne Three' which will render irrelevant the affidavit concerning Josiah. The wisest course for MCFD would have been to posture for another adjournment tomorrow but instead they took the child and here we are. Perhaps Judge Crabtree will see through the legal devices and will make the Baynes and the children wait even longer for a ruling, but I doubt that. He is very sensitive to the hardship created for the Baynes by this tedious process.

Do you want to know what was going on at the hospital nursery these past few days? Do you wish to know what the hospital staff were witnessing? Josiah was doing very well. He fed well and he had regained weight to his birth weight. He responded to Zabeth's and Paul's voices, and to the sound of his daddy’s voice when he sang softly to him. Staff noticed that Zabeth and Paul were the only parents who remained all day to hold and to feed their baby boy. They saw Paul leave in order to attend to his evening work contracts. They saw two parents who enjoy every moment with their child, the way he smells, the way his tiny whimper sounds. They saw parents whose hearts rejoiced when Josiah looked up at them. And this loving care took place while the threat of his removal hung like a pall upon them. Then yesterday, someone was authorized to try fitting him into a car seat, to be ready for eventual transportation and at 2 PM Kim Tran, Surrey social worker, removed him from the hospital. This was done even though Josiah's tiny 4 pound form had to be stuffed round with filler material for him to be restrained within the car seat straps. Did you know that his ability to endure the car seat travel mode was tested, for  up to an hour and his responses monitored. Did you know that the hospital pediatrician who met with the Baynes and approved Josiah's readiness to be moved, is a colleague of Dr. Margaret Colbourne who diagnosed SBS in 2007. Don't know what if anything that indicates. It's just that the lower mainland is a virtual citadel of SBS proponents.

Oh, by the way, Judge Crabtree knows the outrageous action that took place on Thursday February 10th. I surmise that Mr. Humeny stated in the new affidavit that the child was removed under the authority of the CFCSA because the Director had valid reason to believe the child needed protection.  That would be standard. And if as I suspect Mr. Humeny marked the box with an X that indicates that there was no less disruptive protective measure available, that could be regarded as not wholly true? The less disruptive measure was in his face on the 10th. As soon as he knew that due to Josiah's prematurity the baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks, that of itself was the less disruptive measure for protecting the child, don't you think? That is, unless Paul and Zabeth are psychopaths. Therefore when Mr. Humeny drafted the affidavit he did know that this less disruptive option of simply waiting for two weeks was available. We must conclude that the Director and the social worker were determined to hurry to seize the child, even though the latter could say, "I am only following orders." So, considering the larger MCFD entity rather than the Fraser Valley Region, it really was in MCFD's best interest to hold back on Josiah's custody order and forego tomorrow's hearing and simply wait for D-day on Monday, but again, here we are. Oh sure, because of that cute tactical manoeuvre, that is, two weeks have now passed because the MCFD team was a no-show in court, so of course, there is no less disruptive protection measure. 

As I have earlier pointed out, it won't matter whether Finn Jensen himself or a substitute counsel is present for the MCFD on Thursday, since the MCFD counsel will have to point out to Judge Crabtree or another judge,  everything that was earlier heard by Judge Crabtree over several weeks that spread over all of 2010. It is all the same. There is nothing new. I can't imagine how Judge Crabtree or another his/her honour will process this but even if the ruling concerning Josiah tomorrow is to grant MCFD the order, it may be obliterated within hours by the Crabtree decision when he rules on Monday.


  1. Ridiculous. He ought to just come out with a ruling tomorrow for the older three.

    Here in the states, I had the same scenario happen to me in October of last year. 6 hours after the birth of my daughter I was being told they were taking her. I got to spend two days with her in the hospital, but could not have her in my room at night. She left with a foster parent and I am still fighting to get her back.

    Their removal order for her cited past history, that is the false allegation of SBS that we have been trying to fight for over a year and a half now. They also contended that I was a "flight" risk, though I am still unaware of where I would have fled to and how. Point being, they fill those affidavits full of lies and slander to justify their actions.

    Im just glad for Paul and Zabeth that they will hear a final answer to their pain and suffering any day now. It has been too long.

    I am lifting my voice up to Heaven for you all. The end is near. He will turn your mourning into dancing!

  2. Ron, maybe it is time to put the case in the WIKIPEDIA and make it even more public. It will not help Josiah's and family at this moment, but it will help other families.
    I hope Josiah would not end up with SBS from too many stranger people handling him. Would it be Bayne's fault again?
    I suggest Baynes make several medical tests as soon as Josiah is returned to make sure he did not get any new condition while in foster care.
    To foster "mother" - you participated in ripping other women child from her breast. You could of say personal "no" to this action, but you did not. You might have a lot of excuses and reasons to say to yourself and the other people, but the fact is the fact: you participated in ("not so") legal kidnapping and in immoral and inhumane action.

  3. Thank you, Ron, for this very enlightening update.

    I have been wondering about the role the hospital has played in this latest cruel action. Your statement "Did you know that the hospital pediatrician is a colleague of Margaret Colbourne, who diagnosed SBS in 2007" explains a great deal.

    How can this vulnerable baby, who still depends so much on his parents' love, and his mother's milk, be yanked out of the hospital and sent to live with a stranger. Who could possibly think for a second that this is in the child's "best interest."

    It is frightening and maddening that such a thing could be done, and the collaboration between the hospital and MCFD that must have taken place in order for this to occur.

    It appears we have more than one Charles Smith in our midst in Canada. These medical "professionals" do enormous damage, as we can see from the actions of the hospital working in concert with MCFD.

    What MCFD and those who collaborate with them don't seem to realize is that the more outrageous they get, the more outrage they inspire.

    We will work together to demand change. And the politicians and others will have to listen, because our numbers are growing, exponentially.

  4. Here is the contact information for one of the major sources of funding for hospitals in Vancouver, including Surrey hospital:

    Contact Information
    The Jim Pattison Group
    Suite 1800 - 1067 West Cordova Street
    Vancouver, BC V6C 1C7

    Tel: 604.688.6764
    Fax (General): 604.687.2601
    Fax (Legal): 604.688.6776

    Jim Pattison should be very sympathetic to the Baynes' case, since he himself has been the victim of a kidnapping, his daughter being kidnapped shortly before Christmas, 1990. So, Jim Pattison definately knows the torture and heartache.

    It would also be wonderful if Jim Pattison could be persuaded to donate to this very important cause, fighting for families in British Columbia.

    As a self-made billionaire, Pattison is undoubtedly distainful of government waste, and would be, one would think, especially disgusted to learn about the MCFD fiascos over the years.

    Most importantly, the Baynes and other Christians share an important and powerful connection with this man, who could, it is possible, help them, as is suggested from this passage from "The Christian Entrepreneur: Worthy of His Calling?"

    "For example, I interviewed Jim Pattison, a Canadian multibillionaire. He stated, 'I have had a lot of bad moments… There have been low days where I felt I had nowhere to turn. Absolutely, no question, the single most important thing in my life has been my faith.'

    Despite entrepreneurial challenges, the Christian entrepreneur has a cornerstone of values. In short, a benefit to calling can be a tangible foundation and focus for a Christian

    The theory of Six Degrees of Separation says that one of us must know someone who knows Jim Pattison. If we could get his attention and some support, or the support of another Christian entrepreneur, imagine what a difference that might make. Perhaps someone goes to the same church as he does, or has some other way of contacting him?

    One thing is highly probable: Jim Pattison won't have much respect for a government agency that wastes taxpayer money and causes such great harm to families.

  5. I was thinking exactly what Ron said. The Baynes MUST have medical tests done to that baby once they get him back. I would hate to think that something may happen to his fragile body, since he should be in a hospital setting due to his prematurity.

    Why is it taking so long for this judge to make a ruling?

    I would have given birth at home. I cannot stand entities that try their damndest to destroy innocent families.

  6. I don't think it's fair or right to call the foster parent complicit in this fiasco. No doubt she will have thought that if the baby is going to end up in a foster home, the mom and dad will be happy that it was hers because she's going to take such good, loving care of him until he can be properly restored to his loving parents. If/when she discovers the facts of the case, she might well feel used by the MCFD herself for using her unnecessarily (<3 hour feeds isn't anyone's idea of fun and it does take away from your own family's life). I would.

  7. Attention all Christians, and others who may know the person who may be a very helpful supporter of the Baynes, that is, Jim Pattison - please, everyone, check with all your contacts to see if anyone may have a connection to Jim Pattison.

    As the posting below suggests, Jim Pattison can be very supportive:

    Re: Jim Pattison holiday lights
    by The Reverend Duce » 11 Dec 2009, 23:55

    Regardless of its detractors, The Jim Pattison Group is among Canada's largest corporate donors, and one-tenth of the entrepreneur's personal income is directed to charities.

    Pattison is said to have slipped a C$1 million dollar check into the collection plate of the church he attended and also to have donated C$25 million to a private Christian school.

    In 1998, Pattison donated C$25 million to a New York Business Association to help clean up the area and also gave C$20 million to prostate cancer research. Moreover, the entrepreneur also became known for spending time and effort on good causes.

  8. Anon 4:44 re: FOSTER PARENTS
    I agree with Anon 8:18 AM and I take issue with your comment about the foster parent with whom Josiah is staying. She is providing a safe temporary home and she herself is a reputable and good person. Caring for this very tiny infant will be a huge assignment.

    When we take issue with MCFD we must be careful that we don't slam people indiscriminately and undeservingly.

    Your comment about a Wikipedia entry was a good one.

  9. For Nicky B at 8:13 AM
    It wasn't me who commented with regard to “Baynes MUST have medical tests done to that baby once they get him back.'' I believe it was another commenter.

  10. While I appreciate your comments concerning a possible donor, let's recognize that many people of good judgment are successful business people. Think!! Canucks owners? ummm . . . anyone in business with children and grandchildren?
    Problem is that most people still believe that our "authorities" don't really make mistakes. The scandalous issues of the Goudge Inquiry are seldom on people's radar unless there is an authority like MCFD banging on our own door!
    Ron's blog, Ray Ferris's submissions and involvement, Doug Christie's voice, the activist person who put all the ideas on this blog a few days ago, diverse kinds publists all over Canada are helping to awaken us. Thank you all.
    Many of us are finally moving on these issues.

  11. A foster care provider no one outside MCFD knows anything about.

    Why not select any one of the dozens of Baynes supporters who the Ministry has no concerns about.

    Is the foster parent single or married?
    Does she have her own children?
    Is Josiah placed with siblings?
    Are there five other infants in the house as with Bethany?
    Formula fed?
    What amount does the foster home get paid?
    When did the search for a foster parent begin for Josiah?
    What "special needs' does Josiah have that the Ministry takes care of?
    What are the result of all medical tests?
    Have the other three siblings been allowed to see their brother, and will they be allowed?
    Will Zabeth be allowed to feed her own child and provide expressed milk?

    These are some very basic questions a normal person would ask, let alone a mother and father would ask.

    Removals generally are cloaked in secrecy and justified with ambiguous reasons, and this one certainly is no different.

    Two full weeks has passed without a judicial OK on the removal justification and no crime has been committed. The matter has not even been submitted for review by police.

    The larger issue in absence of justification, is that a child kidnap has occurred (Criminal code s.279 to s.285). Exactly what "imminent threat" to the child's safety that justifies the removal or absolves MCFD of wrongful removal?

    To think all this happens on a regular basis is really frightening.

  12. This was a kidnapping, as far as I am concerned. And that means anyone who participated in it shares the guilt. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And the law says that you can't steal someone else's child.

    What authority - if there is any authority - was there to take this infant? If there is no authority, then it is kidnapping. There was no imminent harm and there was no proof of imminent harm. There wasn't even an affidavit that wasn't fraught with perjury.

    This was a kidnapping. Just because it was done by people who hold positions in government doesn't make it okay. Charles Smith, at one time, had great power and influence. Until we discovered the truth. The truth about MCFD is out. It's there for anyone who has an Internet connection. Anyone who places themself in such a powerful position as a foster parent bears the onus of finding out the truth of their "work" BEFORE they begin it.

    And anyone who did the requisite research into MCFD would soon see that there is a great deal of smoke, and there is no doubt, a little bit of fire, enough to warrant second thoughts about going into a hospital and taking an infant, who - everything else aside - still needs his mother's milk.

    What has happened here is so cruel and harmful, I can't see how those who have participated in it - in such a substantial manner are without any blame. Anyone who is involved in taking this child from his parents bears blame.

  13. Forcible confinement

    (2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

  14. Call the Police and bring charges of Kidnapping and Conspiracy and lay it directly at the feet of the ones who are all involved,this is personal,make it personal! You never contracted with CPS for thier services by way of registration of Your Child!!

  15. I agree, contact the police re: kidnapping charges. At least there will be a record of it, even if nothing comes of it. And make sure there is a record of everything (video, paper, etc.)

  16. Let me respond to several of you at once because each of you in expressing your disquiet have overstated your case, and inaccurately described the MCFD action. You are entitled to call the MCFD action what you want because you are so mad, but to be precise about the legalities I have to point this out.

    Anon 9:59 AM – Contrary to your remark, removing Josiah was not kidnapping, not even a wrongful removal. Anon 10:44 AM - Josiah's removal was not a theft, not kidnapping. Contrary to your insinuation that MCFD didn't have authority, I say it did. An official Act empowers the MCFD to do exactly what it did on Tuesday. You are perfectly in order to say that you feel the action was unnecessary, unwarranted, cruel and possibly harmful. If we want to change the action we must change the Act. Anon 11:05 AM – Your citation of forcible confinement as applicable to this removal is irrelevant. The action may have been offensive to you, me and the Baynes but it was not an offence and no punishment can be associated legally to what MCFD by authorization of its mandate. Anon 11:21 AM – What has happened to the Baynes and the children is very personal, but it is not kidnapping or conspiracy but openly done in accordance with authority provided to MCFD. Anon 11:41 AM - The same: this was not kidnapping, but legal protection. Police won't listen.

    Understand, I am not condoning or supporting MCFD action. I too believe this was unnecessary and I find it offensive.

    We may not like and we should change it so that it works rather than wounds.

  17. Ron,

    How did MCFD have authority to take this vulnerable infant - I don't get it. Did they even have an Order?

  18. It's frustrating to me that the police can do nothing about known drug dealers without witnessing an exchange and yet children can be removed from a loving home based on... well... nothing. Does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to criminals? There is something wrong with the system.
    Praying that the Baynes will all be together next week.

  19. Anon 12:17 PM
    You wrote "How did MCFD have authority to take this vulnerable infant - I don't get it. Did they even have an Order?"

    MCFD did and does not have an order to remove Josiah. Tomorrow is the hearing to determine that. However, MCFD doesn't need the order to affect that removal. What MCFD must do is get that order within seven days. Last Thursday the hearing was scheduled to determine that order. The hearing was deferred to tomorrow Feb 24. What needs to be known however, is that part of what Judge Crabtree has reviewed for months is whether MCFD has operated without proper order in keeping the other three children over a 3 year period.

  20. What are the policies of the hospital?! I know in our area that you are not allowed to take your child home from a hospital unless it is over 5lbs, gaining weight, and the parent has to stay in the hospital without the child being hooked up for 24 hours. Just in case something happens they would like to know how the parent reacts to the situation as well as watching the parent with the child to see if they get frustrated and can't handle taking them home at such a vulnerable state. Obviously this foster "parent" was not at the hospital to see if she could handle a small child and the nurses don't even know how this person will react under pressure in the hospital let alone at her home.
    I would find out the policy in the hospital and I would have Doug look very closely at it, there very well maybe a lawsuit in there. If parents can't take their child out before 5 lbs than MCFD should not be taking a child out before 5 lbs either. Policy is Policy! Which also mean that this doctor that gave the ok should also be reprimanded as well.

    My words to MCFD is that you have just put this child into a very vulnerable situation and have very well stressed this very small and under weight child in a place that doesn't have the equipment to care for this child in the way he needs to be cared for, because of your immature, irresponsible, petty, vindictive actions towards this child and family is pretty pathetic! Grow up put on your big boy pants grow a backbone fess up to your mistakes, put these children back where they belong and move on. Everyone makes mistakes, you should know by know that one word your parents taught you when you were young it’s "SORRY" oh and the other part of it is "I'll try not to do that again." You learn from your mistakes and move on. Just like everyone else in the world. If you think you're an exception because you work at MCFD your wrong! GROW UP!!!

  21. Thank you, Ron. But doesn't MCFD need a very good reason to remove a child, especially when the removal itself poses a risk, as it did in this case (as is evident if only from the fact that testing was done on Josiah's responses for an hour in order to ensure that it would be okay to transport him via car / carseat). It was my understanding that there had to be proof of some imminent harm.

    What were the circumstances the indicated that Josiah was in need of care, or to be taken into government custody? Hospital staff, as I understood it, have stated that Paul and Zabeth's treatment of Josiah was exemplary. How can MCFD claim - and has MCFD even claimed - that there was a risk?

  22. Is this the same hospital that Paul & Zabeth's baby was stolen from?


    Pattison donates $5 million to Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation

    Tuesday, 22 February 2011

    Jim Pattison Group owner Jim Pattison announced February 21 that he would donate $5 million to the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation so its new outpatient care and surgery centre can buy equipment, improve infrastructure and attract prominent physicians and surgeons.

    Foundation president and CEO Jane Adams told Business in Vancouver after the donation that the foundation has launched its 100 Days to Give campaign, to culminate June 1, when the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre opens.

    The foundation’s goal is for the campaign to raise $10 million, and Adams is confident this goal will be reached.

    “Absolutely. I have no doubt about that,” she said. “From the individuals and companies that we’ve been speaking to, the fact that Pattison is making such a big investment in Surrey is being warmly received. People want to be part of a success.”

    The new outpatient centre is slated to be unique by offering day surgery, diagnostic procedures (such as lab services, X-ray, CT and MRI scans and biopsies) and specialized health programs all within one building.

    The centre is a public-private partnership between Fraser Health and BC Healthcare Solutions (BCHS). BCHS is responsible for the design, building, financing and maintenance of the facility. Fraser Health will retain ownership of the facility and provide all health and medical services.

    Business in Vancouver

  23. Feb 23 9:53 anonymous said:

    Are there five other infants in the house as with Bethany?

    As Bethanys former foster family we must correct you.
    There were never five other infants in our care at the same time as Bethany. We are parents of six children now but one of ours wasnt even born yet when we had Bethany in our care and two of ours were away attending school. That made three of our own children and Bethany at one time. There were temporary placements along the way but never ever five infants! Get your facts straight!
    Josiah is in the best place he can be during this challenging time. With his siblings in a very loving and stable home until a decision is made.
    I will continue to pray for what is best for all four Bayne children.

  24. Anon T and Foster Family
    Thanks for keeping these facts straight.
    I agree with you, Josiah is in a good place at the moment.

  25. How did / can MCFD justify taking Josiah? What was their authority for doing so?

  26. MC&FD. MINISTRY FOR CALLOUSNESS AND FAMILY DESTRUCTION. No good Colonel Omar Ghadafy looking for a job there. He would be rejected as too soft.
    The ministry does not discriminate. It abuses everyone including foster parents. I have known many fine foster parents and it was a privilege to work with them. I am with Ron in supporting the fine home where Josiah is placed. At the same time I think it is a good step behind the best home for the little lad, which is with his mum and dad.

  27. As far as court tomorrow, I'm praying that the truth will come out! As for the judge, I see it could go either way, either a new child, hence a new chance, or that they're guilty until proven innocent and letting the child stay in custody. The thing is, if they lose tomorrow and then win on Monday, then what? Another day in court to get Josiah back?

  28. Child welfare has WAY too much power and they are above the rules and someone needs to put them in check and give them limits and tell them to stop stealing kids from innocent families.There has to be an ombudsman of some sort that keeps tabs on THEM! They are above the law and no one should have that much power over people's lives and be able to swoop down and snatch their kids without cause.This is like a police state!


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