I have never listened to Roadkill Radio before or watched its livestream broadcast but I did last evening. Paul and Zabeth Bayne were scheduled to be on it. I was hesitant about their appearance because the promotion for the upcoming show led me to believe that it could cast them in a bad light since the hosts were going to aim some heavy artillery at the Ministry and particularly that segment of workers related to the Bayne case.I must say that Paul and Zabeth stated their case with confidence and detailed explanation. After all, it was a significantly more receptive interrogation than the cross-examination within the court room. The recorded audio portion is cited below for you. It was a 60 minute show with numerous call-ins, citation of other cases, expressed abhorrence at the treatment this couple has experienced from the Ministry of Children and Family. Below is a 3 min video clip and a 50 min audio clip.
 |
| Terry O'Neill |
 |
| Kari Simpson |
It was healthy for me to listen because I was reminded of 18th century Utilitarianist and philosopher, Jeremy Bentham's words, "Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the very spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity". Frankly, I needed that. As I have been rethinking this blog purpose and approach recently, that statement inspired me. Free Speech is fundamental to our democracy. Injustice is intolerable. Three and one half years for children in government custodial care without the proper orders in place is injustice. And publicity of an injustice to the Baynes is what fired this blog these past 16 months. And if publicity is the very soul of justice, and perhaps an elixir to the conscience of a community, then we have little option but to keep speaking.
This show was entitled Family vs. State – The Bayne family’s battle with social workers from the Ministry of Destruction
Show #91 Part 2
Download Show #91 Part 2
8:30 – 9:30 pm: PAUL & ZABETH BAYNE Paul & Zabeth are in-studio to share the story of their on-going struggle with the Ministry of Children & Family, to have their four children returned to them. This is an important story that illustrates why the unbridled power of incompetent social workers must be curtailed.
What do we do when the child abuser is the social worker? What do we do when judges hide behind the law, putting their reputations ahead of a child’s best interests? Why are we as tax-payers paying, in excess of, $6000.00 per month to a foster family, when the children’s grandparents are willing to have them? This could be your family. When are we willing to say “enough is enough!”?
Click here for the background on the Bayne family’s plight; this is an excellent and important blog! (here, is a reference to the ronunruhGPS blog.)
Tell a couple of friends about this blog and the subject matter.
Presently 234,000 viewers
A short video clip of Paul and Zabeth Baynes stating their intent to cooperate with the Ministry to show they are good parents can be viewed on YouTube at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqigZxPkmY
ReplyDeleteThe full audio segment at the link you have posted is about 52 minutes long. It is well worth listening to.
These two radio hosts declare their intent to follow-up, especially if there any repercussions from the Ministry affecting their visits. They have a track history of persistence, so these are good people to have on your side.
Because Judge Crabtree's ruling is so short and omits all social worker witness and foster parent testimony , the only way the public can be apprised of what really went on in court is to have the entire set of transcripts produced and relevant excerpts published. It is an absolute crime and slap in the face of the public to omit the facts that trusted government officials falsified permanent government documents on citizens in order to bolster their shaken baby case.
thanks for the youtube video clip link
ReplyDeleteIt does take considerable fortitude of the parents to continue allowing the public to be aware of what is going on, when they have full knowledge ministry minions routinely exact retribution and go out of their way to continue to inflict pain on this family at enormous taxpayer expense.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministry has painted themselves into a corner. Judge Crabtree has proven himself to be a willing participant in this fiasco of justice. He had the opportunity to do the right thing and convey to the public justice does exist in MCFD cases, but he chose not to. The judiciary under his guidance is just a very expensive rubber stamp for MCFD.
It is good he is all for public disclosure of what goes on in the courtroom, so he should not mind at all the logical results of what it means to be under public scrutiny.
The MCFD has six months to return the children. MCFD well knows the Bayne situation is a political hot potato, but like a greedy little monkey who has his hand trapped in a jar, refusing to withdraw without his fistful of ill-gotten goods, the Ministry, their minions, and director Bruce McNeil specifically refuse to let up.
Perhaps it is time for Mr. McNeil to set an example, apologize to this family and exit stage left before he is forced out. This situation continues to anger right thinking citizens, and we are not going to stand for it.
Paul and Zabeth's motivation was well-expressed in this exchange:
ReplyDeleteKari Simpsom: The best thing you can do is to expose this as loudly as you possibly can. I think you have a long enough track record of trying to do the right thing. And where has that got you? No where.
Paul Bayne: Well we have to stand up for other parents and other children because this will just continue to be perpetrated for years to come.
Most of us would be quiet--in fear of repercussions from the MCFD--and suffer under the injustice. I believe that the Baynes refusal to be silent WILL help other parents and children.
I was thrilled to see that such a forum exists; it really gives me hope. But once again we learn how this Ministry does NOT protect children, and in fact does the opposite. But I'll let readers listen to the radio show in order to learn the latest atrocity regarding tiny Josiah.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you Ron for continuing this blog - all the hard work that entails.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but I suspect that one of the reasons Crabtree didn't email or post his Reasons for Decision online was because he doesn't want them, easily, spread far and wide.
Publicity is exactly what we need. To make the Ministry acccountable, but also to make our other servants, the judges, accountable. And let`s remember what these people are supposed to be: our servants. Public servants.
serv·ant /ˈsɜrvənt/[sur-vuhnt] –noun
1. a person employed by another, especially to perform domestic duties.
2. a person in the service of another.
3. a person employed by the government: a public servant.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English < Old French, noun use of present participle of servir to serve; see -ant
-----------------------------------
There is no way on earth any judge - our servant - should be making the kind of decision that Crabtree made. He is responsible, in a big way now, for the suffering of this family.
If we keep at it, I am certain that more and more media will be interested and report on the injustice this family has endured. And the more interest people show in this story, the more the media will report on it. So let`s keep contacting those in the media that we think will publish this story. Although some may ignore us or worse, eventually we will find those who realize how important this story is.
The Road Kill radio show has a link where supporters can provide donations, for the Road Kill show, via Paypal.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the same system could be implemented for the Baynes - it looks like this could be done via a "Donate" button on a website, etc., and also via a link in an email.
Here is the link for more information on Paypal donations.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/donate-intro-outside
It would be helpful if any media story on the Baynes also includes information on donating to support the Baynes.
Thank you for the donate button suggestion. It isn't the first time this seeming convenient tool has been mentioned. I am looking at it and thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteThere is no one person that can be targeted for the angst the Baynes family is going through.
ReplyDeleteJudge Crabtree, to his credit, bumped up visitation times to three times that most parents get, and IN THE HOME. This is a big deal for the Baynes family. He also permitted publicity. He also forced social worker Loren Humeny to reveal the name of his informant against Paul. Crabtree just happened to have written a crappy judgment that took him five months. Perhaps this pleases his bosses, MCFD, and protects him from liability should any of the children become hurt or re-removed in the future.
One might be tempted to villify Dr. Colbourne, BC Children's hospital support staff and a Florida SBS cheerleader Dr. Alexander, for their vigorous defence of shaken baby syndrome. A diagnosis disputed by ten experts AND the judge at the end.
Someone else would target the many coniving scheming lying social workers involved. What about the Hoffman's child protection complaint made DURING the month period Bethany was being diagnosed? Let's not forget also the Hoffman's munchausen's syndrome by proxy in a police statement.
How about the foster parent seeding false information on Glutaric Aciduria, blindness, and a strange cerebral palsy diagnosis posted in an online comment? Another fine candidate for public examination. Being paid thousands of tax-free dollars monthly to care for other parent's children during litigation while relatives and friends are willing to do it or free boggles the mind.
Let's not forget Bruce McNeil who personally wrote a letter to the Baynes prior to the removal of Josiah. CSM Fitzsimmons for authorizing the birthday removal of the boys. Finn Jensen, who wrote a letter saying there was no evidence that would support retention of the boys, yet he delivered a three-day oratory villifying the Baynes in his closing argument, many points of which are referenced in Crabtree's ruling.
How about the hospital staff who eagerly complied with MCFD requests regarding Josiah, forbidding mom from providing expressed milk to the infant. Staff who DIDN'T supply the Baynes with the little purple had and associated shaken baby / purple crying literature.
At the top of the food chain, MCFD Minister Mary Polak and even Mary Turpal-Lafond for receiving letters and continue deferring the matter to the courts and privacy concerns.
When you put together this picture on just this one case, is it clear the child protection muck is spread around purposely so no one person can be targeted to explain ministry shortcomings.
Paul and Zabeth, keep up your remarkable efforts at bringing this child protection farce to public attention. Eventually it will catch wind and reforms will happen.
In the meantime, keep pressing MCFD to get their cooperation in delivering services.
The donate button or a direct link from the sidebar on this blog would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally referrals to increase their company cleaning business revenue, I'm sure would not be refused.
Later on today I will start to describe a parental capacity assessment. For now some odds and ends. You know the trouble with Crabtree's omissions is that every time I think about the case I see another omission. I have to stop somewhere I suppose, but here are some more. Crabtree was faced with trying to determine whether the injuries were accidental or non accidental. The defence doctors said it was impossible to tell. Dr. Plunkett impressed me as being a powerful, honest, incredibly skilled and articulate wintess. Crabtree brushed off his evidence. Plunkett said that the default diagnosis is "I don't know and not shaken baby." The defence summary added that when the diagnosis is "I don't know", then the default judgement is not continuous care, but return to parent. Although Crabtree had ruled that cause of injury could not be determined from medical evidence alone, he seemed unable to say "I don't know" and instead he opted for "unexplained injuries." He chickened out of committing himself in any way. The injuries were certainly explained, but the problem was that he did not want to hear the explanations. Once again he cherry picked the evidence and dismissed the opinions of several distinguished experts all too lightly. He did reject Colbourne's explanation. Here is another omission. Zabeth gave evidence that she was so concerned about the impact on Bethany that she took her daughter to see the doctor to be examined on the following day. This was confirmed with the doctor's records. The judge insisted that she noticed nothing special at that time and ignored this piece of provable factual evidence. He also said that she had said different things at different times. Of course she had. The defence submission pointed out that she was forced into doing this by various social workers, who told her that the sibling collision could not possibly cause the injuries and they had better search their memories for an alternative explanation. Crabtree knew that. The judge hummed and hawed about the degree of risk, but in his obscure way of saying things (look at his comments on the father's non-testimony) he appeared to say that the risk was really quite minimal and if this is confirmed by a "parental capacity assessment" the Director might well consider sending the kids home. I doubt whether the judge has the slightes idea what is meant by a parental capacity assessment, or how it differs from a risk assessment. He obviously thought that the "risk assessment" done by Humeny was too badly done to mention in his judgement. Yet he is quite content to trust the same pack of wolves with the PCA. If he actually knew anything about parental capacity assessment, he listed several very strong points in favour of the Baynes in his judgement, without realising that he was providing important postive comoponents for an assessment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am getting into may main topic here. Right now, I am off to the gym.
Having a hard time linking to my facebook using the share button on this post ...
ReplyDeleteFacebook link query
ReplyDeleteYes me too. Will see today whether there is any defect at the blog site. Usually the kinks are pretty much out of my hands and automatic.
Facebook Followup:
ReplyDeleteIt appears a Facebook error issue.
The Twitter link works.
Your other option is to tap the title of this specific blog post, so that the url appears in the uppermost window - copy it and paste it into Facebook using the link tab, then press attach, and then add whatever words you want to say, and press publish.
ReplyDeleteMore work, but it works.
I did your last suggestion and it worked. thanks.
ReplyDeleteReaders. Here is the first of a two part piece on parentParental capacity assessments. Parental capacity assessments are essentially a method of making an inventory of the lifeskills of parents. They are similar to risk assessments and the main differerence is the starting point. A risk assessment usually starts with a perceived risk and then assesses the strengths of a parent to resolve that risk. A parental capacity assessment is more geared to assessing the historical and current functioning of a family to provide a profile. This profile is then used to assess the likelihood of future risk. Some types of risk cannot be assessed properly without considering profile. Now I am going to jolt some of you out of youe mental ruts by stating that adoption and foster home studies are in fact parental capacity assessments. In an adoption study one looks at age, health, education, training, earning abllity, income, occupation, housing and marital history. One is looking at whether the couple is stable and responsible enough to raise a young child to adulthood. One does look at a number of other things, but the main components are the same as with a PCA.
ReplyDeleteA foster home study is very similar, but with important differences. To start with foster parents usually have children of their own, or have raised their own. One can assess parenting ability by direct results. Adopting parents take a nice little baby and after a few months they are on their own, just like any other family. With foster parents one seeks very special qualities and the selection process is much more exacting. These people will have the challenging task of taking children, who may have suffered severe and prolonged abuse or neglect. They will be in the home for various lengths of time depending on court outcomes and life plans and so on. They will need a lot of support and guidance until they gain experience and they must learn to work with the social workers, for better of for worse.
A parental capacity assessment should be an objective and fact based record of age, health, education employment. A life skills inventory is not very difficult to do. The vast majority of children coming into care are from homes where the life skills are conspicuously absent. They have little education and employment skills, poor job histories and often unstable marital histories. They are poverty stricken and often live in substandard housing. There are money problems and schools complain about hygene and lack of lunches. So you can see that whether we are talking risk assessment, or parental capacity assessment, the people who discuss and design the outline of these studies are mostly discussing the lowest economic strata in society.
Children get injured all the time and these injuries are nearly always accidental. So how does a doctor assess the cause of an injury? He or she looks at profile. If the injury happens to a child who seems to have decent, caring parents who have looked after the health of their child, he will take the parents' word about the injury. However, if the family has a history of alcohol or drug abuse, family violence, or a criminal record with violence, then the picture is different. Another warning sign is if there are simply too many injuries occurring in the family.
To be continued. The continuation will discuss also who is qualified to do these assessments.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePeople would be surprised how many social workers turn out to be criminals. In Canada, this is more difficult to ascertain. However, in the United States, there are quite a few, and this has been the subject of numerous media reports. Because the USA media is more diligent about reporting such cases (though they of course also fail to convey the magnitude of corruption in the USA) and because CPS is far more accountable in the USA (parents have actually obtained judgments worth millions of dollars because of CPS misconduct), it stands to reason that there is even more corruption in Canada, and that there is even more likelihood that social workers or CPS or MCFD or CAS workers are or have been criminals.
ReplyDeleteWe need to start uncovering, and exposing the criminal activity of MCFD workers, and making them accountable, starting with the perjury.
Human lives are being destroyed, most notably, innocent, vulnerable, helpless children. The discrepancy of power between the victim (a child or infant) and the perpetrator (a social worker or other MCFD employee, with the backing of the limitless power of the state, which is in turn funded by our apparently limitless tax dollars) makes these crimes especially heinous.
Why aren't they being held accountable. Even in the USA, which many Canadians love to mock and ridicule for their justice and culture, will hold child protective services far more accountable. They at least occasionally send child protective services criminals to jail. They at least occasionally award parents who have had their rights violated by child protective services millions of dollars. We, on the other hand, often won't even let parents sue - even when it's clear that MCFD played a big role in the death of our children (e.g., the judge who told Reena Virk's parents that they were out of time when the Virks tried to sue MCFD).
1/2 PCA first hand experience
ReplyDeleteA PCA costs from $5,000 to $10,0000. The Justice Institute out of Abbotsford provides free assessments if a judge so orders, but there is a 4-9 month waiting list. (This may be for s.15 custody access matters only; an s.15 is almost identical to a PCA.)
A PCA includes a series of psychological tests that determine if there is some hidden "nutcase" element that precludes parents from taking care of their children. The most complex test, the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) has about 400 questions that are cross-linked so you cannot "lie" to try to make yourself look good; it just invalidates the test.
People who think something nasty will be discovered about them will deliberately throw the test to invalidate it on purpose, then the psychologist has to use his observations and experience to evaluate that parent.
A good, balanced report would see Paul and Zabeth as good parents, noting their impeccable history, no derogatory visitation reports, no health issues, strong family and community support, very strong bond with the children, nice home, stable work etc. In short, no barriers to a quick return of the children.
A bad report would do something like Crabtree did, cherry pick through court evidence and visitation reports helpfully provided by MCFD to find any derogatory instances that do not reflect well on them as parents, locate adversarial people for an interview (ie. the Hoffmans, the foster parents, Social workers), the blog and news sources could be scanned and comments used, the social worker's account of certain key instances could be used instead of the parents, an examination of their financial condition, a talk with former employers, foster parents can instruct the children to say something to the psychologist (remember kids cannot testify in court, but anything they say to an expert psychologist gets in front of a judge via the PCA report).
A finished PCA does not require the psychologist (a court-recognized expert) to be present in court to defend their report, unless the 'loser' contests and calls the doctor to court (at a cost of at least $250/hr to testify as an expert) in hopes of tripping up the psychologist to show a bias.
If such an assessment done by a Ministry-paid doctor goes against the parents, they have virtually no chance to defend themselves unless they hire a reply psychologist that can point out errors in methodology. Tests cannot be retaken. In fact, the MMPI-2 cannot be taken again by parents for two years to avoid "correcting" answers. These tests are on the internet.
Since most expert pscyhologists are PhD's, they take a huge risk if they choose to deliberately "throw" a test, since being caught entering a false report can end their career. They have significant leeway to affect the speed of a transition for a return though. A questionable psychologist might claim a full year of supervision, counseling and other services be continued after the 6-months is up, for example. A lengthy 'transition' period giving consideration to the children's bonds build up with the foster parents can be overemphasized.
That said, an s.15 test I took which recommended I get custody, upset my former spouse and their lawyer, so they hired a reply assessor. This lady lied. I got it on tape. When she was called into court, I held up the audio CD and the lady turned white. A UBC professor. The judge was not impressed.
2/2 PCA First hand experience
ReplyDeleteMCFD intended to apply for an s.59 to force me to take a PCA with "their" psychologist, so I pre-empted them and applied to have a PCA test with my choice of psychologist. I paid for the PCA up front and got a fair assessment. MCFD withdrew from my case and returned my children. Later, I was able to force MCFD to reimburse me.
Since Paul and Zabeth are fine parents and have a very good relationship with their children, MCFD has a significant hurdle to overcome if they intend to skew the testing.
There are a variety of tricks MCFD can use to skew tests. Foster parents who are MCFD cheerleaders fill out forms on the children, they can misrepresent answers. Just before the children are delivered to the parents, in order to have their interactions witnessed by the psychologist, the foster parents can "prepare" the children. Feed them a lot of sugar to get them hyper, deprive them of sleep the night before, tell the children some lie about the testing process and how they should act.
The Ministry can restrict documentation the psychologist sees, such as the original risk assessmen on the Baynes. The police transcript of the Hoffman's testimony. Omitting some medical reports, or including negative suggestive reports.
MCFD might refuse the pscyhologist unsupervised access to the children. MCFD can sugar-coat the foster parents home to make it seem like heaven, and that the children are aclimatized, strongly attached to the foster parents, etc.
Remember, MCFD wants a CCO, so will strive to show the children would be harmed by ripping them from their "forever" foster parents by making it seem the real parents are occasional vistors they have little attachment to.
In the same manner as Crabtree constructed his rulng, a psycholgoist can use the exact same information shaping techniques. This is the danger the Baynes face with a Ministry-controlled report.
A PCA report always seems to have "service" recommendations. Now, if the selected psychologist is paid by the Ministry, that person would like to preserve a relationship with the Ministry in hopes of snagging future contracts. So, the "services" always seem to match what the Ministry offers.
A questionable psychologist will do something like recommend lengthy counselling, a regime of graduated reductions of supervision, overnight access. There might be a period of a year of this nonsense. Needless crappy MCFD counseling for parents and children continued for a year if the intent is to return. This is how MCFD keeps their grubby fingers in the family's lives for far longer than necessary.