Tuesday, March 8, 2011

FAILURE OF THE FATHER TO TESTIFY / Part 469 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Today,I can tell you more about the future of this GPS blog. By next Monday it will have a facelift but more importantly it will undergo a Refocus. For sixteen months each daily blog post has concerned Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their quest for the return of their children. They will continue their efforts but I will not consistently write about them. Their names will not be synonymous with the content of this GPS blog. I will however speak to the child protection concerns that proliferate within our societies and these comments as well as yours will not include or reflect upon the Baynes. The stories of other families struggling with child protection and advice on how to work with MCFD in order to recover your children may be featured here.There will be occasional updates about the Bayne Family progress.
Debriefing Judge Crabtree's REASONS FOR JUDGMENT March 2, 2011
My Fourth of Numerous Synopses (Judge Crabtree's actual wording is in quotations. Everything else is my understanding of the statements for the ruling.)   THE FAILURE OF THE FATHER TO TESTIFY

There is no question that you will not have anticipated this part of the ruling. In the ruling document, points 199-211 are devoted to the legal possibility of drawing an adverse inference based upon the failure of Paul Bayne to testify in this court hearing. The judge noted that the original trial plan had included a testimony from the father, Paul, yet although Paul was present throughout the proceeding, Baynes' counsel indicated at the end of Zabeth's testimony, that her testimony was the conclusion of testimonies. Judge Crabtree defined why this becomes a curiosity since the infant has been in the care of both parents from birth, and further there were times when the father was alone with the child and the judge names these as September 23, 2007 and September 26, 2007 and in each case there was an incident. Judge Crabtree drew from The Law of Evidence in Canada, Second Edition (John Sopinka, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan Bryant, Butterworths: Markham Ontario, 1999), this conclusion - The ability to draw an adverse inference from the failure of a party to testify. Other sources as well informed Judge Crabtree that it was entirely within his purview to draw an unfavourale inference because Paul, without an explanation failed to testify. Crabtree posits that the adverse inference doctrine is more a matter of logic than of law. That is, the law permits an adverse inference to be drawn against a party in certain circumstances but does not require it. The drawing of an adverse inference falls within the arena of the trial judge.

Then importantly for the Baynes, Judge Crabtree states in Point [211] “In considering whether to draw an adverse inference in this case there are certainly questions that remain unresolved particularly in regard to the events of September 26,2007. Having said that, I am not satisfied in this case that it is necessary to draw an inference that the father's evidence would have been unfavourable to the case.”


  1. What wouldn't have been unfavourable to this case? The Baynes couldn't win, because Crabtree, and the system, was biased against them from the beginning. The fact that Crabtree employed a child protection lawyer at his law firm, a lawyer who currently works for MCFD, speaks volumes about where his sympathies lie.

    The fact is, the vast majority of these judges are not unbiased. They look at these parents as a lower class, people who can have their children torn from them on the balance of probabilities and it is no big deal, since they aren't really a part of their crowd. There is no way that these judges would be taking the children, or grandchildren, of their colleagues and other people who they presume to be in their class or above their class.

    People should go to court themselves and see what goes on. They should watch, for example, a judge in supreme court (which is even more accountable and in the media than is provincial court) swearing like a drunken sailor in the presence of school children (Justice Leask):

    "Judge Leask caused a sensation during closing arguments at a drug trial last March. In front of a courtroom packed with reporters, lawyers and members of the public - including a school group - he used the f-word four times, along with, "oh, shit," and "goddamned." "


    Or maybe they or someone they know was affected by the decisions or worse yet the action of Judge Ramsey of Prince George:

    "Ramsay pleaded guilty on May 3, 2004 to sexual assault causing bodily harm, breach of trust and three counts of buying sex from a person under 18. The offences took place between 1992 and 2001.

    His victims, mostly aboriginal girls living in poverty and in trouble with the law, were subjected to acts of escalating sexual violence. Some were as young as 12 years old."


    The point is, we have to stop thinking that just because someone is a judge or holds any position of power, which should be a position of trust and respect, that they are automatically trustworthy and deserving of respect. These people deserve close scrutiny, and even more severe sanctions if they screw up, precisely because they hold positions of trust.

    Judges can do a great deal of harm, as we can see from this case, where good parents have been torn from their children, and vice versa, for over 3.5 years. All on (even less) than the balance of probabilities. Even a serial killer gets better odds when dealing with the justice system.

  2. I'm really happy with the plan to refocus the blog! Thanks so much for all the hard work you put in.

  3. I believe the solution with the the trouble in Family Court would be to have Judges Elected rather than appointed. I belive that would make a huge difference.

  4. Here is a quotation from a recent publication (published just days before the Bayne decision) from the Office of the Chief Judge, Provincial Court Judiciary, Provincial Court of British Columbia, #602 – 700 West Georgia Street, P.O. Box 10287 Pacific Centre


    "The constitutional principles of freedom of expression and the openness of courts are of crucial importance. Freedom of expression "protects listeners as well as speakers" which means that listeners and readers, as members of the public, have a right to information pertaining to public institutions and particularly the courts.

    This is significant in terms of media access to courts and court records. As noted in Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 SCR 1326:

    Here the press plays a fundamentally important role. It is exceedingly difficult for many, if not most, people to attend a court trial. Neither working couples nor mothers or fathers house-bound with young children, would find it possible to attend court. Those who cannot attend rely in large measure upon the press to inform them about court proceedings -- the nature of the evidence that was called, the arguments presented, the comments made by the trial judge -- in order to know not only what rights they may have, but how their problems might be dealt with in court. It is only through the press that most individuals can really learn of what is transpiring in the courts. They as "listeners" or readers have a right to receive this information. Only then can they make an assessment of the institution. Discussion of court cases and constructive criticism of court proceedings is dependent upon the receipt by the public of information as to what transpired in court. Practically speaking, this information can only be obtained from the newspapers or other media.
    It is equally important for the press to be able to report upon and for the citizen to receive information pertaining to court documents."

    And in the table that is appended to this publication, the policy on access to Reasons for Judgment seems pretty clear:

    17. Reasons for Judgment: Unrestricted access, subject to a ban on publication (see 5 above and 23 below).

    Where, then, are the Reasons for Decision in the Bayne case? I cannot locate them, and therefore cannot read them. So much for open access and lofty principals.

  5. Ron regarding Paul's silence. I am pressed for time now and I will address the matter of the other defence witnesses later. For now I will simply copy an email I sent to Doug Christie in which I tried to be as clear as the judge.
    Ruling section 211 “In considering whether to draw and adverse inference in this case there are certainly questions that remain unresolved particularly in regard to the events of September 26th, 2007. Having said that, I am not satisfied that in this case it is necessary to draw an inference that the father’s evidence would have been unfavourable to the case.”
    I think that what the judge is actually saying is that while there are many pros and cons to consider about this type of issue and in no way relating it to the actual case in point and also that context and content might actually become more than merely peripheral issues in such instances, but could indeed become central and considering these things and that in fact the context of this situation is such, that the inference is that failure to call Paul as witness should no longer be a cause for Mr. Christie to indulge in self-recrimination.

  6. Judges, the apex service provider of the child protection industry, have a vested interest to ensure that power of the cartel prevails and its best interests protected. Don't forget that they and all service providers live on tax dollars and are employed by the same boss, the government. I am not suggesting that all of them are corrupt. However, the presence of good judges (or good SW) will not curb the structural corruption. Their hands are tied by a lopsided statute and case law. Above all, they are jeopardizing their own career if they rock the boat too much, as judges are appointed by the AG. They all want to climb up the judicial ladder.

    The real issue is the lopsided CFCAS and the general child removal authority this Act empowered. Instead of changing focus on other families struggling with child protection and advice on how to work with MCFD in order to recover your children, I humbly suggest that this blog may wish to focus on how to deal with the aforesaid real issue.

    In the past, some people consider revoking general child removal authority inappropriate as there are beliefs that some children must be removed (hence CFCSA is needed) and the judiciary will provide timely fair adjudication. Now, you folks see it first hand that the latter is not true. To deal with real child abuse cases in which removal is warranted, other statutes have given various authorities the power to remove. CFCSA is redundant, counter productive and has brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

    CFCSA circumvents due process of law, charter right protection and the need of good evidence. It allows SW to define child abuse (hence controlling the demand of their "service" and the size of the child protection industry) and use children as pawns to seek their agenda. This barbaric Act has no place in a free and democratic society.

  7. Well Ron & Ray I tried to tell you both what the Baynes were up against,...you both seemed to want to ignore the fact that I do indeed know what I'm talking about...I do know exactly who and what the MCFD are and these corrupt judges are.

    I had the EXACT same thing come down in July 2010 after a lengthy trial in Victoria...the judge sides with the 'ministry' and their torrent of lies!...those who walk this path need to be heard and we need to speak up...I could have been mother teresa in court and still denied being a parent to my own child...the judge who decided my case lives an alternative lifestyle...Contrary to the WORD OF GOD.

    Maybe it's time for these judges to pick up the HOLY BIBLE that sits infront of their corrupt faces and learn the REAL LAW OF THIS LAND...seems we need some FEAR OF GOD to overtake these that think they are above the 'law'.

    I met with Ray Ferris last year. He wrote an excellent report regarding my situation which was included in the 2 books of exhibits for court. I read it in it's entirety Mr. Ferris's report in court for the judge...I might of as well been talking to the wall...I will say though Ray the judge had to look in her book of the CFCSA to locate which laws you refered to in the report.

    I am up for another 4 day CCO trial MARCH 21-24 in which I have decided to run myself as lawyers are useless,...they don't argue the law or the TRUTH, they argue FACTS which have NOTHING to do with the TRUTH.

    I as told that the ministry has a slam dunk case over me and that it has already been decided that my child will be put up for adoption this year...this is even before the trial has started...so how does the ministry & gov't already know this? How many 'gifts' have exchanged hands for this to be the gov't stance even before the trial begins?

    They know because it's already been decided and the JUDGE IS IN BED WITH THE SYSTEM, partial and biased toward the hand that feed.

    I was told I cannot subpeona the 'director' or the social worker who told me the day she met me June '09 that I will never be getting my child back....they have sinced moved my file to a new worker to avoid the LIES of the old social worker coming to light in court.

    Evil won't come into the light as it will DIE if it does...well I'm not going down without a fight...they aren't going to see me coming. I am a woman of GOD sent by God to shed light on EVIL in this eleventh hour. First I'm going to rely on the LAW OF GOD, then the law of this land...something lawyers don't know how to do as they, like judges and politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths...all I hear is BLAH BLAH BLAH...

    I'm beyond sick to my stomach for Josiah and the Baynes....people it's time to STAND UP TO EVIL, TYRANNY & STUPIDITY regarding the building block of society which is the family unit.

    Come watch me in kangaroo court...should be a riot...if they think they are going to take my child they are in to go toe to toe, face to face with me...who are my accusers?...let them stand up...I DARE THEM!!


    PEOPLE OF GOD STAND UP! PEOPLE OF GOD SPEAK UP! National sin will equal national judgement...we have forgotten this land from sea to seas belong to JESUS CHRIST...

  8. Well anon 8.25. I could probably have done something with the facts of the case, but you repeatedly sabotaged your own case. You sent obscenity laden emails to ministry officials and you refused to accept any advice to modify your behaviour. You were abusive to anyone who did not agree with you and rejected me and my advice as soon as I did not tell you what you wanted to hear. At the meeting with the lawyer and social worker they were absolutely hostile. I thought all three of you behaved terribly. I have no awy of knowing whether your child was at risk or not, but I thought that he was probably as safe as most other kids Sorry about that, but only you can take responsibility for your own behaviour.

  9. I see my earlier entries did not make it yet. I addressed failure of father to testify and answered another writer.
    Next topic is failure of defence to put any more defence witnesses on the stand, for instance grandparents and those who wrote references. There is another important omission here.Judge Crabtree knew perfectly well why Paul and others did not testify and he was no halp in this matter. Selective memory here I think. On August 9th, 2010. a week of testimony began. At the beginning of the week the judge said he would really like to wrap the trial up that week and asked both counsels for a time plan. Each agreed on half a day to sum up and make closing arguments. Remember that he had already allowed the director to waste a week on testimony so worthless that he did not mention it in his ruling. He allowed time to be gobbled up that could have been used by defence witnesses. No sooner was the time plan agreed than Finn Jensen started to sabotage it. He completely sabotaged the video-link evidence of Dr. Van Ee by the ruse of claiming a report had not been given to him. It had been. However, this made more time available, which left for the parents to take the stand. Jensen made sure this could not happen by dragging out his cross examination for a day and a half. This left no time for Paul to testify. By Friday Doug was ready for his summary, but Jensen was not. All hope of finishing on the 13th was gone. The Baynes weighed up the need for their references to testify against the need not to keep the kids in limbo any longer.The judge knew this was their reason, because it was ine defence summary. Although he had failed to rein in the atrocious time wasting of Jensen, he held it against the Baynes. Althogh there was some very bad behaviour by the ministry staff, he was very careful to offer no Criticism of them.
    This was another omission. When he was weighing risk factors and making confused and convoluted arguments, he made another very important omission which must have needed willful blindness. He did not assess the risk inherent in the foster care system. The risk waa far higher than by placing the children back home. This was not a theoretical matter, because the risk was on proven events. The care of the children had been completely destabilised with three different placements for the boys and two for the girl. If the children were to spend the rest of their lives in foster care, they would need to be moved again and most likely separated. The home was getting about $10,000 a month in direct income and additional services.
    A precarious future lay in store. The judge chose to ignore all that. Just as he made no inference from the brutal removal from relative care and the inane reasons given for it.
    I think that this case is one where what is omitted illustrates a biased judgement, much more effectively than what is included. The public would not know about these omissions unless they had followed all the evidence closely. Appeal courts, of course, have access to full transcripts, so one cannot hide evidence from them. In the next couple of days I want to write about parental capacity assessment.

  10. Ray, people need to read and reread your recent comment in 2:59 PM because Paul didn't testify exactly for the reason that there was no more time, and Jensen filibustered emptily and the judge wanted to finish the case, so Christie has just about had enough of Jensen's tactics by then that he said I'm done and I will give my closing argument. ------for all Jensen's wordiness, the judge did not give MCFD what it had requested, namely the CCO.

  11. RE: publication of Baynes ruling.
    It will go up shortly.

    Courts take several weeks to edit out names before putting it up in the judgments database. I do find it unusual that the document was faxed, not delivered by email in PDF/Acrobat format as is the current BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal standard.

    Crabtree made a ruling that the request of Finn Jensen to ban publicity fell through, and it was not appealed. This freed Ron's Blog in covering the case. However, no mainstream media attended trial. Extending this logically, the trial transcripts should simpy be published so people can browse and have others reference exact quotes from proceedings to make a point.

    The aspect of publicizing a case in progress, of course a judge would not care if criminals or accused-but-not-convicted have their names published. I question if unfettered release of private family affairs should be publicized. Family cases where there are no charges, has significant repercussions for all the participants. A stray commment could permanently blacklist someone from a job such as in childcare. A perfect example is Robert Glen Harrison's case where garbage allegations were left in his record and unknown to him, published to a third party resulting in him being blacklisted from any employement associated with children.

    How can Zabeth teach piano to children now, even though no crime has been committed? The assumption of going public is to be proven right eventually. Here we see the consequences of publicity.

    Certainly, on a wider scale, other parents going through a similar turmoil are emenantly grateful the Baynes did decide to go public. There is massive amount of learning opportunity for these parents fighting false allegations and unscrupulous government employees.

  12. Hi Ron,

    Will all the archives of the Bayne story still be available for readers to catch up on all your work up to this point?

  13. A correction.Jensen sought a publication ban. The judge denied it, but banned the use of names. Later on Jensen complained that Zabeth had a blog and names were being used.(It was Ron's blog.) The judge replied that he was unable to rule on that because there was no evidence before the court about a blog. He also advised Mrs. Bayne not to say anything. Seemed like he was trying to help her.

  14. Yes Rachel Joy, the archived posts will continue to be available and searchable.


  15. It is a big clue as to the mindset of the judge when he singles out and focuses on one parent and assigns a label "Failure of the father to testify" and manages to write 13 paragraphs over more than 2 pages.

    Commentary on Zabeth's testimony was nearly 3 pages with 26 paragraphs. It certainly does appear the judge's intent is not to favour the parents or give them any credit for any of their parenting efforts before or after the removal.

    Compare the writeup on Paul versus ANY of the testifying social workers or foster parent. The magnitude of false and misleading information provided by the social workers (four days on the stand for Humeny, I believe) is just mindboggling that it does not even rate a mention by the judge.

    If a social worker testifies that Bethany is blind and can't walk and has other serious lifelong problems due to the parents, a normal person would think that would rate a mention in a judgment that took five months to create.

  16. Anon 10:29 PM March 8 re: Judge's Ruling

    I surmise that you question or fault the judge for omissions and suggest a bias by the judge to censure the Baynes. If that is what you are saying then you have agreed with Ray Ferris who is his comments to posts these days has been pointing to certain omissions in this judgement. Now the important notation after writing to the matter of Paul's not taking the stand is that the judge stated he did not infer a negative impression or suggestion to that.

  17. Any idea when the rest of us might get to read Crabtree's decision?

  18. Crabtree Decision online - no clue about release or site location

  19. Publication Date of Ruling: Mar 8, 4:27 PM , you said coming shortly - how do you find that out?
    Ruling: Fax or PDF – we were told it was coming fax; actually delivered in PDF
    As horrific as the Baynes ordeal is, it is educational for so many others.


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