Saturday, March 19, 2011


The Bayne family deserves a chance to live as a family. It has been apart far too long. Longer than was necessary. On March 2nd 2011, a Court of Law overruled the Ministry of Children's foundational ground for intervention and care of three children. Judge Thomas Crabtree dismissed the shaken baby allegation, yet found no satisfactory explanation for injuries sustained in 2007 by the youngest of three children of Zabeth and Paul Bayne. Therefore a minimal level of risk was still assigned to them and the children remain in care for the specified period of six months. The case file has been transferred to the Surrey branch of MCFD with new caseworkers. Representatives of this branch and the Bayne parents have met together with a view to develop communication and to discuss action steps. It is hoped this is being conducted with a view to returning the children to the Baynes. The infant son, born February 10, 2011, who was removed four hours after birth in conjunction with the order in force at that time, is unfortunately a separate case even though integrally linked to the outcome of the earlier case. This continues to be a punishing and lengthy time for Paul and Zabeth, which at times must seem like it will never end. Remember them.


  1. I pray that a miracle will occur soon to reunite this precious family. No one should have to go through this in our country. I pray that those involved will correct the error in this case and give the children their home and family life back.
    Holy Spirit, comfort those who need comforting and protect each family member. Lead the decision making process to reunite this family and keep them whole! May those responsible for this be corrected.

  2. Remember them indeed.

    Encourage them.

    Pray for them.

    Help them in any way you can...writing letters, helping with legal costs, sharing their story with your friends, etc.

    Don't give up on them because this story is not over! Every day is a struggle for them and we need to surround them in spirit and help carry them through this.

  3. As politicians such as MP Justin Trudeau apparently wouldn't dare say, but as needs to be said:

    This is barbaric.

    Readers who wish to read more about the importance of calling a spade a spade:

  4. At this point, I do believe the Baynes are on their way to reunification. It might not be three months or six months, perhaps twelve. As long as they stay vigilant and keep their wits about them when they do the Project Parent counselling and the Parental Capacity Assessment, the remainder of the year should be comparatively uneventful.

    I must say, the strategic execution of this case has been masterfully done by MCFD. The endless delays, the timing, snagging the infant before the ruling, barely a blip from the media. Even the finer details such as faxing the ruling with all its legal errors rather than posting it on the Provincial Judgments page. Remarkable. All very slimy of course. The public will not know except by reading through this blog.

    MCFD is now vulnerable politically. Now is the time for MCFD critics to educate the new administration. Find new active cases with similar atrocious conduct. Same old same old, as Ray Ferris suggests, or will the new administration prepare for an election and throw the public a bone by having social workers registered with the college?

  5. I am still trying to get my head around that judgement. I repeatedly said that the evidence simply could not support a continuing care order and apparently the judge took the same view. When I thought what other order the judge might make if he decided against a CCO, I saw three alternatives. Even if he made a protection finding, which he did, he had three alternatives. 1.He could return the children outright. 2. He could return them with a supervisory order. 3. He could make a three month temporary order.
    If he did the first, the media would have lambasted the ministry. With the second choice, he would save the director's bacon and reunite the family. The obviously worst choice was to make a TCO. The children had in effect already been in temporary care for over three years and the act only allows one year. If the system were not so broken down, these kids would have to have been back home two years ago at least.
    As I have said before, the judge had a high priority of not rocking the establishment boat. He blatantly cherry-picked both the law and the evidence in order to make a protection finding. The main reason in his judgement was that he thought Zabeth contrdicted herself in evidence. Being grilled for a day and a half on things that happened three years earlier, she was not clear on details. How many of us would be?
    He made one mammoth omission in assessing risk. He made all his considerations with small points and no overall sense of context. He completely failed to consider the risk in foster care. He provided enough material in his judgement to tell him the story. He mentioned the dedication, commitment and consistency shown by the Baynes in trying to get the children back. He mentioned the difficulty of parenting premature children and the sacrifices made by the parents. He mentioned the multiple foster home moves and the snatching from the grandparents home in the middle of a birthday party. Then he completely failed to connect the dots. He made no inference from all this and no allusion to it. He made no allusion to the days of malicious testimony by the social workers.
    Finally he made a minimal risk protection finding and argued himself into about a ten percent risk level. What is the risk in foster care? It is generally accepted that there is about a fifty percent risk of destabilisation. How much is the risk for the Bayne children? The risk is 100%. The worst has already happened and they have already had too many moves. ATTACHMENT DEFICIT SYNDROME is happening. Serious emotional symptoms have been nopted and entered into evidence in the submissions arguing for more access. Attachment deficit effects can be life long and there has already been enough disruption and long enough disruption to tell anyone with any knowledge of child development that the kids would be much safer at home. The ministry staff and the judge seem to be oblivious to the harm they are causing.

  6. Can someone who has the Reasons for Decision - Crabtree's decision of the Bayne case - please make this available on this blog or elsewhere (and please let us know where it is). Keeping the judgement unpublished on the Internet is exactly what MCFD and an unaccountable justice system want.

    I would like to read this judgement, as I am sure would others. I would also like to email it to people so they can see what goes on in our courts with respect to child protection cases.

    Please scan in Crabtree's judgement and publish online. It should have been posted on the BC provincial court website, but it wasn't - we can guess why.

  7. A link has just been posted to the Bayne Case ruling. It is Post 481


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