The supporters of Paul and Zabeth are almost speechless tonight. We find that words fail to communicate our sense of what has been lost today for this family.
Curiously, today's event has given voice to an assortment of people who have chosen this moment to place offensive comments on the earlier blog post. We seldom if ever heard from you earlier to argue actual points but now you reveal yourselves by hurling insults and slinging names at the parents. I am sorry you resorted to that. Oh, and some of you pro-Bayne folk threw some back didn't you?
I removed the requirement these past three days that all comments must pass my rather liberal scrutiny and that worked acceptably until tonight. I have reinstated that requirement. Reasonably stated comments even if in opposition to the advocacy of this blog will still appear but not when they are calling the parents liars and crazy.
The ruling today directly affects the Bayne Family to be sure and casts a pall of despair. Beyond this single family, it would be unfortunate if our society would ignore the solicitation for changes to the Child, Youth and Community Services Act as well as the call for a review of the way child services and welfare and protection is delivered within our communities. To that end I am trusting that among the over 12,000 hits to this site today are news editors and columnists who will begin to research the concerns about child protection in this province and across our country.
Perhaps in the days to come, some aspects of the ruling today can shed some light to provide answers for the countless questions that you have about why it came down as it did. Yes I wanted the Bayne children to come home, and yet I will be objective when I share a Judge's formulation of a conclusion to this highly emotional case.
THAT'S THE LAST WORD HERE FOR TONIGHT.
From an earlier post. Is this still active?
ReplyDeleteTD Canada Trust [bank # 004]
Continental Centre Branch [branch # 9713]
Account Number [6415554]
Cheque should be made payable to: "Charter Lau, Kenny Chiu, Marvin Hunt In Trust For Paul and Zabeth Bayne" ; OR "Lau, Chiu, Hunt ITF Bayne"
I have been silent for a long time because I don't want to share my views that will scare the Baynes. Since the first delay in making a decision on Jan 19, 2011, I am compelled to believe that the judiciary is sleeping with the Ministry. Knowing that Mrs. Bayne was pregnant, the judge deliberately delayed his decision to allow time for MCFD to scope up their new born and to beat the Baynes to accept "services". The judiciary has reduced itself to a very expensive rubber stamp.
ReplyDeleteUsing their children as pawns, the Baynes will be forced to accept "services", which are nothing more than disguised interrogations, and attempts to seek admission of guilt. If the Baynes cross this bridge, you will soon see how MCFD-paid shrinks play a role in this racket. These monkeys will be at their back for a very long time.
Even if the judge orders a return yesterday, there is no guarantee that their children will be returned. MCFD will allege appeal or re-remove them shortly after returning them. Social workers have more power than provincial court judges.
You folks get a front row view of this frightening corruption and kangaroo court. The undue power of MCFD will not get this bad without the collaboration of judges, who are the apex service providers in the "child protection" industry.
The authority to remove children at will seriously jeopardizes our safety and challenges our long cherished human rights, civil liberty and freedom. Government has a track record of abusing this authority from the grand scale of residential schools to individual cases like mine and the Bayne's. Allowing such authority is like giving a loaded gun to someone and providing financial incentive to that person to shoot you. There are compelling reasons to believe that there is structural corruption and racketeering in "child protection" and adoption (the sister industry of the former).
God is using their atrocity as a single spark to start a prairie fire. Does it convince you to support revoking child removing authority now? If you still believe that government should have such oppressive power, the suffering of the Baynes is totally meaningless.
I will reserve my judgement about Judge Crabtree's decision until I get more details, but I will say I am at a loss to understand his decision right now.
ReplyDeleteI see your troll is back. The one with impaired "google" skills and an apparent "inside track" (last part paraphrased quote). I say to our troll -- "Provide your proof or zip it." To the naysayer who says "The truth will come out in the end" about "how crazy this family really is", I am confused. When is "the end"? You imply you have proof, so what are you waiting for?
Another poster said that the Bayne's story has changed over constantly over time. I have known the Bayne's for a long time and have always heard only one version. Where did you get your changing stories?
One poster said we only hear one side of this story because MCFD cannot comment because of privacy laws. Strangely, they did comment on the Bayne children. Ask our troll to google it for you (It's on CBC, Mr. Troll). The most interesting part is that they gave not one, not two, but three different answers to the same question. Who's story is changing now?
How horrible for this poor family, so victimized! What do they have to do to have their family and freedom back? Do they honestly have to hire commandos or something to storm the foster home and get the kids back and then leave the country? To me that seems the only hope left to restore their family and get away from this injustice and oppression!
ReplyDeleteThis situation is not too surprising at all. I recall hearing similar stories on the radio and news papers back in the 80s. I knew back then that it would be a good move to leave the province.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to keep in mind how government ministries work, report and obtain justification for funding. Its all based on charts and reports. The Bayne family is just a number on a report. It will show numbers of court cases won, number of children abducted, oops I mean protected from harm, number of children whose family situation is being monitored by staff social workers, increase in these numbers over prior years, projections for the next year, ...
These people have to justify their existence. The truth is secondary at best. Funding is king and it is acceptable to have some casualties along the way. Babies living in crack houses are fine, it is a risk to staff to go too deep into the drug world. It is much safer to go after the middle class to get the numbers needed for reporting.
The honest truth doesn't matter, children don't matter, the middle class doesn't matter, ... Only staff safety, reports with pretty graphs and pictures for funding decisions matter. Only justification for continued territory matters. I knew 30 years ago that moving one person out would have no impact. Nothing short of firing everyone who holds a directors title or higher, causing those decision makers to leave the system, would bring any new direction in a short time-frame. I just do not believe it will happen with a coup from the vast middle class. This is your Egypt, your Libyan cause. There will be opposition. But, will the polite and well mannered citizens stand up for justice?
Let's be real for a moment. This situation affects just a small number of people. It's nothing an entire province will demonstrate on. Pick a dozen middle managers by name, circulate petitions for removal, have flyers with pictures and stories, get media attention and call to question the motives and means of specific people. Work your way up the food chain. Come up with action plans that Canadians could swallow.
Honestly, I do not believe drastic change will happen. But, my heart still goes out to the victims here, and my hopes and prayers are with you.
I can not help but think that this decision may actually be protective for the Bayne's and the Ministry's interests. The Judge did not accept the shaken baby theory. So that leaves a heavy question, what really happened to Bethany? Is there a genetic/IBE, medical concern that could be at play here? There is a brand new fragile infant. If over the next 6 months the new little guy "presents" as his sister or older siblings did during their infancy out side of the care of the parents perhaps the answer will become self evident. There are hundreds of cases very similar to this one where time and circumstance prevails. Make no mistake, I am not advocating that this forced separation is the best way to prove innocence. It certainly rules the parents out as to causation. As brutally painful as it is there is heavy risk involved here for all parties.
ReplyDeleteRon, it is not true to say the dissenting voices have been silent on this web page. There has been such voices here, but they are then rail-roaded by the opposition here because you fail to moderate the discussion. Even when the voice is simply saying "Isn't it possible?" or "Please explain this."
ReplyDeleteToday is not the first time these folks have spoken up. And no, I don't believe a lot of them went about it in the right way. Some were offensive and that was unacceptable. I imagine it was built-up due to the inability to enter into discussion on this web page without being thrown conspiracy theories and rhetoric back at them by some other commenters coupled with your failure to moderate.
Is the judge's ruling right or wrong? I don't know. I don't know the doctors reports, I was not in the home during the alleged incidences, I don't know the Baynes...I don't know anything. What I do know, is the Baynes have 6 months. If I were a parent I would do absolutely everything that was asked of me regardless of innocence. It is quite clear that the judge has all but given a Last Chance Order.
I am very sorry about the judgement and I know it is hard to feel the spirit of love inside when a mother is missing her children. I was so lonely for my children too. I hope you can be very strong and I send you all my love. I have also tried to explain to people who know me of how much the law is corrupted to make it completely powerful to MCFD's advantage. I am in for some very minor stuff and it has to do with housekeeping years ago, yet I am still involved for 2 years in a row now, with lots of court. I lost my kids but only for a few months. SInce there was so little reason for that, MCFD wanted so many things done, including a Parental Capacity Assessment which I am in right now. Since, they do not want to be sued later. I think it is worthwhile to go to the 'services' as they will only do two things, one is to let go of power, the other is to try to save face by forcing 'services' and I do not know the future, or if there is a finish line. And, you inspire me everyday Paul and Zabeth because of your strength. Stay strong.
ReplyDeleteThis decision needs to be appealed. I believe there is enough support for the Baynes and enough outrage at MCFD that we can raise the funds to provide an appeal. Where there's a will, there's a way. And there is definately will.
ReplyDeleteWe should be spending our efforts now to find a way to get this revolting decision overturned. It may be tempting to kowtow to the Ministry, but this is not the right thing to do, nor will it return the children. The Ministry wants revenge, and revenge for the Ministry means taking the children, forever.
We must appeal. For the sake of the Baynes, all families, and democracy.
Time to start doing more than praying.
Let's do what the government, and this Ministry, fear most:
Organize, and fight back.
The first thing we could do is have a meeting. All we need to do this is a space large enough to hold however many people pledge to show up at the meeting.
The meeting should take place in the evening or on the weekend, because it can be difficult or impossible for people to take time off work or other commitments that occur during work hours.
In my view the best and only way to solve this with any degree of finality is for the parents to find the causation. They have only six months to do that. In reality it is much less. There is a blood spot from the new born sitting in that hospital. Testing it Private,using private labs. It is inevasive,and aging as we speak. If you are denied access to it, that says something to the court. The hospitals will have the same on all the children. I have money sitting in an account with Pediatrix. You are welcome to it.
ReplyDeleteI have been following this case on and off for a little while now. I have come to believe that Judge Crabtree is a wise man. He is in a position to look at the evidence from an objective point of view. I realise it would be difficult for supporters to maybe come to the understanding that perhaps the evidence that was presented to the Judge showed that the Baynes have some issues to deal with in regard to the care of their children. It seems to me that any testimony or evidence presented to the court by good community people are then considered conspirators because they are contrary to others belief that nothing was wrong with the children. The judge heard both sides. If you were praying for justice then maybe you should ask God if this was actually the best for this family so they could now come to terms with some things they have for so long denied. I do speak with love for this family. If they were to appeal this ruling then 6 months may become so much longer. Those who are closest with this family should support them even more in the next while but maybe from a different angle. That is to say what were the issues that Judge Crabtree wants them to deal with. It seems to me that the Baynes have portrayed themselves as model parents and have done nothing wrong. They need to sit down with their social worker (bring support) and start to work to get their children back. MCFD does have its pitfalls but in many cases its working. Lets not get caught up to destroy a system that is in place for many children who need protection and find out how we can bring change to improve it. I do wish well for the Baynes and am praying for them.
ReplyDeleteAnon at March 3, 2011 10:44 AM -
ReplyDeleteYou claim: "The judge heard both sides."
Tell me, are you aware how much time was used up by the Ministry with their incredible "witnesses," versus how much time remained for the Baynes to present their case? (A common ploy of MCFD).
And I don't think it is irrelevant that you and the judge both get your incomes, or part of your incomes, from the government. You aren't exactly unbiased.
You want the Baynes to admit they are guilty of something of which they are innocent. That is wrong, and to state that the Baynes must do this before they can even think about getting their children back is to take the side of tyrants.
In regards to "I would do anything asked of me... regardless of innocence." Lie? So then the next parents that mistakenly lose their children must also lie and accept false guilt? I am sure I would be tempted as a mother. It would be a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteI live in a 3rd world country where a bribe - one I could have afforded easily enough - it would've been a lot cheaper than my court case -probably could have(well, maybe)won me back my child. Then the next family here might have had to pay a higher one, then a higher one and with the sort of family services I was dealing with, they may have taken the bribe and sold my child off to the next highest bidder anyhow. The "accepting the services" (lying that you WERE guilty) of the Ministry does seem a more morally grey area than the giving of bribes. To the Baynes, only you know the people who have accused you, and to what extent they and the judge(s) were fair, sympathetic, vengeful, professional or not, etc. ... Listen to God's Spirit on this decision and Trust in His Promises to Orphans and Oppressed (there are many, many!) We bought a Bible for the time our child was taken and read most of it, underlining special messages and putting dates/applicable names besides other key passages... in hopes that one day our child could read it and we could share those messages together. We will as soon as he starts to read well enough.
I was a public school teacher for 35 years and got to know many foster children very well. These poor children have been bounced around to four foster homes already and this only complicates their confusion about who really loves them and who really cares about them. I say that these children should be given back to their parents. If the need is felt then some subsequent assessments may have to be done but at least the parents and children have the chance to prove what a loving and caring family they are! May God bless them soon by seeing that this happens. Karen
ReplyDelete