Friday, March 4, 2011

Couple 'heartbroken' judge rejects children's return after three years - THE PROVINCE

This is Glenda Luymes second article in as many days. Quoted in its entirety as it appears in the Online issue .
Many thanks to Glenda and her editor at The Province
Couple 'heartbroken' judge rejects children's return after three years
By Glenda Luymes, The Province March 4, 2011 4:05 AM

A Surrey couple fighting for custody of their four young children are "heartbroken" by a court ruling saying the kids must remain in foster care for another six months.

In a case that gained significant online attention, Paul and Zabeth Bayne sought to have their children returned to them after they were seized by social workers more than three years ago.

On Wednesday, Judge Thomas Crabtree found the children, three-year-old Bethany, five-year-old Baden and six-year-old Kent, in need of continued protection. A fourth child, baby Josiah, born just four weeks ago - also remains in foster care.
"We're really disappointed," Zabeth said Thursday. "But we feel the judge has laid out an opportunity for us to get our kids back, and we're prepared to do what's needed to see that happen."

The Bayne family was split apart by the Ministry of Children and Family Development after baby Bethany was hospitalized with injuries doctors believed were the result of being shaken -a diagnosis Paul and Zabeth have always claimed impossible.

In an interview before the verdict, Zabeth told The Province that Bethany was a normal baby until an accident in September 2007 when her brother fell on top of her. The baby girl stopped eating and began vomiting, leading the couple to visit a series of doctors.

Bethany was eventually admitted to B.C. Children's Hospital with fluid buildup in her brain and other injuries. Shortly after, the baby girl and her two older brothers were placed in foster care. Josiah was also taken away after his birth Feb. 10.

The couple's long, expensive court battle ended Wednesday with the judge finding that while "the family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the children," they remain in need of protection.

Crabtree rejected Zabeth's explanation for Bethany's injuries, pointing to inconsistencies and saying he was "unable to place any weight" on it.
© Copyright (c) The Province

Make sure to read the preceding daily GPS blog entry, "IS THERE NEED FOR PROTECTION?" which is my 2nd condensation of the Crabtree Ruling (Reasons For) ....Dr. Ron Unruh


  1. To: Anonymous who wrote on March 4, 2011 7:56 AM in Part 466

    Bravo, you did a good analysis on the modus operandi of MCFD and the kangaroo court. I hope that your input will enlighten more people to understand the oppressive nature of the "child protection" racket, how it is to society and how vulnerable families are.

    Refusal of "services" is intolerable to service providers in this racket. Why? Because this is their bread and butter. CFCSA allows service providers to control the demand of their "service" under the pretext of child protection. If parents are defiant, their children will be removed and the judiciary, the apex service provider in this industry, will use its power to help beat parents into submission. Beyond doubt, the judiciary is an accomplice. In CFCSA proceedings, the judiciary is merely an expensive and inefficient rubber stamp. It fails society's expectation to provide fair and timely adjudication. Of course, judges, like SW, are accountable to no one in a society where there are people who naively believe that they are impartial and infallible.

    A foster parent posted a comment two days ago pleading not to destroy a system that works. This system certainly works very well for foster parents and other service providers. Billions of tax dollars are wasted to provide their ill-gotten income. Only "clients" (oppressed parents) who have received "services" from SW are qualified to comment, not service providers, retired judges or politicians.

    This problem cannot be solved without revoking general child removal authority. The Bayne's supporters should now divert their energy to this cause. For the love of our children, act before it is too late.

  2. Dear Paul and Zabeth,

    It truly is heartbroken to hear about the verdict by Judge Crabtree. Nevertheless, there seems to be the opportunity in the next 6 months to do what is best for the children to reunite them with the family.

    It is rather difficult for anyone to be 100% sure (except for the Baynes family) on what exactly happened at the Baynes home that had caused injury to baby Bethany. It is good to know that Judge Crabtree has ruled out Shaking Baby Syndrome based on all evidence presented to him. However, it is not unreasonable for him to remain doubtful of what exactly happened and be cautious. Even if the injury was caused by accident as explained by the Baynes, there is still the element of neglect which the Judge will have to take into account.

    I think there is much wisdom in what Judge Crabtree said about moving on and that the opportunity is in the hands of the parents.

    Unfortunately, I think the court case has created a scenario of the Baynes against the MCFD, while they really should be working collaboratively. The focus should be to find the best solution forward to reunite the family, and NOT to use the court case to expose or address any inefficiency or unfair issues within the MCFD.

    The next 6 months should be spent to find win-win solution together with the MCFD to demonstrate that the Baynes are good enough parents to take care of their own children. The MCFD's objective is to make sure the children are protected and cared for in the right environment, and the objective of the Baynes is to have the best environment for their children to grow up in their own family. So let the Baynes and MCFD work together to achieve this common objective.

    For those who think and believe that there are issues within the MCFD that need to be fixed, it should be taken up to the Minister and Premier independently of the Baynes' case.

    I sincerely hope that over the next 6 months, the Baynes and the MCFD can work collaboratively to reach an agreement so that the 4 children can re-unite with their parents.

  3. What can we do? Should we write to our members of parliament? Should we now write to our new premier? Does she have the power to get the children back to their parents? Maybe she would understand since she is a woman. I am willing to get as many people as I can to help. We could organize a fundraiser concert for the family. Please comment on my questions and let's all put our heads together to get this family reunited and help with "revoking general child removal authority".

  4. I'll never forget finding out that the "client" who committed suicide (and therefore ostensibly gave Finn Jensen a reason to cancel court) was actually a parent who had lost their child. I think parents who lose their children and commit suicide is far more common than anyone knows. I imagine it is perceived by the "client" as the welcome end of many years of torture. I know one woman who lost her son when he was six and still, years later (he turned 17 recently) is going to hearing and getting emails from her social worker and lawyer. They love to drag this out.

    And this is why I think that Crabtree's 6 months to become better parents is a crock. In 6 months the court is going to say nothing has changed, the parents shouldn't get the kids, and they'll take another 6 months or longer. Eventually, they'll say the kids need stability and should be adopted out.

    The only hope is to make an appeal. The Baynes have the support, and can get more, it's just a matter of organizing.

  5. The premier used to be the Minister for MCFD. She is corrupt, I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

  6. What sort of services does MCFD offer in the Surrey area that the Baynes could take that would be sure to satisfy Judge Crabtree and the various social workers?

    I am familiar with Project Parent, where a counsellor comes to the family home to witness the parenting and family dynamics and they work together to make suggestions. This is without the supervision person present. These are 1-2 per/week sessions an hour or so each, with 6-month signups then a renewal up to a maximum of a year. Written reports are delivered every three months. Free to parents and are offerred through MCFD referrals. I understand current MCFD standards is for the counsellors have to have a masters degree.

    Perhaps post some links of other such services that would be suitable.

  7. For Anon March 4, 2011 12:37 PM you wrote.........
    “For those who think and believe that there are issues within the MCFD that need to be fixed, it should be taken up to the Minister and Premier independently of the Baynes' case.... I sincerely hope that over the next 6 months, the Baynes and the MCFD can work collaboratively to reach an agreement so that the 4 children can re-unite with their parents.”

    You wrote a good letter to the Baynes. I believe there is much wisdom in what you say, that is, that the Baynes' efforts for the next 6 months must not be associated with our criticisms of MCFD. It will not be good for them. It will be imperative that they develop a reputation for working collaboratively with MCFD, and that of course will require the same willingess from MCFD.

    Anon March 4, 2011 12:41 PM
    You asked what you could do and you wondered whether the new premier could get the children back for the Baynes. No, she cannot. She cannot preempt a court order. She will not become involved in an individual case that has gone through due process. Letters have already gone to her and she sends them to staff to follow up, and that may be simply a letter of acknowledgement.

    Advocates associated with the Baynes for 3 years are once more working on Fund Raising Options and eventually word will get out if there is a plan. However, your interest and willingness is not lost, Please stay in touch.

    And Anon March 4, 2011 5:46 PM, yes Premier elect Clark was briefly the Minister of MCFD. To jump out with your next statement, “She is corrupt,” is unsubstantiated and unhelpful.

  8. Is Christy Clark corrupt?

    I'll let readers decide:

  9. I am familiar with that blog site, usually unapologetically caustic. And there is Alex G. Tsakumis, an insightful and less profane writer who has no respect for Clark either. So I concur there is room for criticism. I think that I responded to the abruptness of your charge with no supporting remarks. When is slander, slander and defamation precisely that - I constantly ask that.
    Tsakumis here:

  10. Another reason that the judge may be getting the Baynes to think that they can work with MCFD for 6 months and possibly get their children back is that if the judge were just to state that the children are never coming back, then it is more likely that there would be more outrage against Crabtree and MCFD, and more support for the Baynes - and more likely that the Baynes would appeal, because obviously if they are told there is no hope, then they are going to appeal, or try at least to raise funds to appeal.

    But by giving the Baynes, and much of the (duped) public hope, the judge accomplishes this: he doesn't look so bad (because people think he's more "reasonable"), and therefore gets the media to tone it down (think of the response if his decision had been to severe parental rights forever, versus giving them this 6 months time to "work it out"). He has essentially pacified people who don't want to face the reality of MCFD's cruel and unjust ways.

    But the really important thing is this: when the judge gets the Baynes to think that if only they work with MCFD, there is a chance, maybe a good chance, they will get their kids back, then the Baynes get conned into NOT appealing, and therefore lose their right to appeal, forever. Which is EXACTLY what the Ministry wants.

    People need to remember what this Ministry has done to the Baynes and others, and how vindictive, deceptive, manipulative and cruel they are. Do you really think they are going to give the children back, especially when they now have even more proof that the judiciary is solidly on their side? The Chief Justice of the court where they do most of their business (i.e., taking away people's children) has just rubber stamped their atrocities. Why on earth then would we trust MCFD or the provincial court to give the children back?

    We should be working to fundraise for the Baynes, and simultaneously working to create a media firestorm, so that we can launch an appeal that will show MCFD that parents and citizens who care about democracy are not going to stand for this insane tyranny. The clock is ticking, and MCFD is hoping like hell that we are gullible enough to believe they might suddenly change their stripes.

    The question is - are we?


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