Friday, March 11, 2011

MAKING IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE / Part 472 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Bayne family is a prime example of the way by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development (“Ministry”) fails to follow the principles outlined for it in the Child, Family, and Community Service Act (“CFCSA”). Unless Leslie duToit and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond give attention here, there will be other cases like this one that become public knowledge. I must compliment Paul and Zabeth for the tenacity with which they have brought their heartache to the public. What else were they to do when the agency that should be helping them shut its ears to them because the Baynes would not admit to a criminal act.

First the RCMP said there was in sufficient evidence and now a Judge has ruled that there is no evidence of a Shaken Baby crime. Yet still they do not have their children because Judge Crabtree could not resolve the unexplained nature of the injury. I've read the chronology of events and I can appreciate his quandary, but I am of a mind that 3.5 years is already enough time spent playing it safe, that is protecting the children from who knows what. Three and a half years is a sufficient penalty to impose on parents for an action that cannot be proven. It is time enough that hypothesizing a ten percent probability of continuing risk to the children by these parents is unnecessary and even illogical. It makes no sense. Six more months serves no useful purpose. Are you going to tell me that you at least know with certainty then that the children are safe?

Really, what if something happened to one of the children while in the supervised care of the Ministry. That could happen couldn't it? What if the newest child was involved in a car accident while being transported? It could happen, correct? I mean, accidents do happen don't they? And isn't it true that sometimes accidents are no one’s fault? They are unfortunate occurrences, right? Seems to me the Baynes made the same case three years ago. Is there a probability of risk to be assigned to the Ministry? Could a risk assessment of Ministry care be implemented?

Paul and Zabeth are doing everything they possibly can to live by their high principles and present a good account at the end of the day. I want you to know that. I want that to be public information. Enrolled in parenting courses and other practical sessions to enhance their skills, it is time that these children be awarded to them. Liberate the children.

Back online Monday - Have a great weekend


  1. Paul and Zabeth are Incredible parents. I have been at visits, and observed how they and their children interact. Another six months of trying to prove to the mcfd and Judge Crabtree that they are more than capable of taking care of, and loving their children. They can do it! And they will, I pray it is enough.

    They need us, more than ever to get behind them. Their fight is far from over! Their is enough info, here on Ron's blog, for all of us to step in and help wherever we can. They are all practical ways. Let's not just pay lip service...let's literally put our money where our mouth is! Change only comes when MANY do what they can.

  2. More information on this car accident involving Josiah that was mentioned in the RoadKill Radio show intervew when Zabeth mentioned just being informed by the Ministry on the matter would be appreciated.

    In the past, MCFD has shown a tendancy to minimize and sugarcoat information delivered to the parents where it comes to reporting accidents and unexplained bruises involving children in their care.

    I believe a visitation with the children would have happened by now so the condition of this tiny four-pound infant should be verified.

    There is no information on whether or not the other children were in the car. How much damage? Who is at fault? Which hospital?


    The past 3-1/2 years is now water under the bridge, and being morally and logically correct and belabouring the point of this injustice might help with new readers, but does not assist with the current situation going forward. There might also be an inference that this family is holding a grudge and is unable to move forward, which is definitely not the case.

    The Baynes have been given a path by the Court to have their children returned. It is MCFD's mandate to work with parents even before a finding of a need of protection. As we have witnessed, MCFD's trick around this is to maximize the threat of danger to the child, and to minimize offering of services and make such services conditional on admitting guilt. This is how MCFD get their funding renewed by keeping expensive-to-care for children for longer than necessary. This is how next year's budget is kept intact and immune from cuts.

    Parents have a path of escalation available to them if MCFD employees drag their heels with respect to offering and implementing services.

    A letter sent to the team leader and community service manager that is not responded to is followed up by a letter to Beverley Dicks, Acting Regional Executive Director of Vancouver Coastal Region, who then gives it to Linda McNulty, executive director of practice, to deal with (she gets paid more than Bruce McNeil), who in turn gives it to the community service manager.

    This phase of the Baynes case is now ONLY dealing with service delivery, and the minions cannot be found to be dragging their heels on this. When we talk about 3-month and 6-month time frames for infants, delays beyond this are inexcusable.

    Should these minions continue to ignore internal directives to resolve the matter, another follow-up letter is necessary. At this point, inaction on part of the minions becomes a clear act of defying internal authority and makes MCFD's public mandate look worthless. This makes these executives angry, and they have the power and motivation to move things along.

    This matter is technically no longer in the hands of the court. This excuse the matter is before the courts can no longer be used. A continuing buildup of publicity that has the danger of affecting Christie Clark's bid for election may result in her putting pressure on Mary Polak to 'deal' with the matter to silence it once and for all.

    After all, MCFD has other fish to fry. Fish who make less noise. Perhaps MCFD should cut its significant losses and also choose to move forward.

    Surely, it must be embarrassing for a billion-plus dollar budgeted government ministry that were advised by their own lawyer they would los due to lack of evidence, but still they forge ahead and lose a shaken baby trial to penniless parents.

    It must further be embarrassing to have Dr. Margaret Colbourne ruled worthless for diagnosing SBS. It must sting that very expensive SBS cheerleader from Florida, Dr. Randall Alexander was also deemed a questionable expert. Biased, perhaps?

    MCFD, lets move forwards, or suffer the consequences.

  3. The Bayne's case is not an isolated incident. MCFD often uses children as pawns to blackmail parents to admit guilt in court, force parents to divorce (if one parent is perceived as a risk), indoctrinate children to hate their parents, provides financial incentive to remote relatives or foster parents to work against family reunion. These are systematic attacks against civilians, legalized crimes against humanity.

    Judges consider foster homes are known safe place and often err on the side of caution to place removed children in foster care. Unfortunately, some people do buy this non-sense. If you are one of them, please watch:

    If you believe that the judge intends to return the Bayne's children, I am afraid this is wishful thinking. He could have done so a long time ago if he wants to reunite the family. Beyond doubt, he is sleeping with the MCFD. The 10% probability of continuing risk is an absurd excuse. How can he quantify it? The risk of child abuse in foster homes is certainly not zero, if not higher than 10%. There is no known safe place. If he rejects SBS, how could he rule in favor of MCFD? It is like saying, I find you not guilty of murder, but I still give a death penalty. Mr. Bayne's failure to testify is considered a guilt inference. Are we presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? Huh, it only applies in criminal proceedings, not in CFCSA hearings, a shrewd circumvention of charter right protection.

    It is as clear as a bell that the only solution to protect our children from the largest institutional risk is to revoke the general child removal authority. If you share the same opinion, please write to:

  4. Anon March 11, 2011 9:10 AM

    You may have caught my intentional omission of detail re: accident. That remains the position here for the present time. Baynes' lawyer is preserving all evidence for future reference. Any further intimidation or threats about disclosure are being noted and formal complaints will be lodged against a number of sources.

  5. Two points. First a risk assessment has been done on the foster care system. It was done by none other than judge and child advocate, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She has made public the dismal record of foster care on more than one occasion. I believe it included only a fifty percent chance of placement stability. I once did a longditudinal study of 700 children in long term foster care. It showed that placement stability was very high if children were placed very young. The older they were at admission the worse it became. Usually because they were much more damaged. The Bayne children have been three and half years in care and have already had three placements. Already they are at high risk if left with the ministry.
    Second. The judge was very kind to the social workers and the director.He was so careful to offer no criticism, even though he had to turn a blind eye to the elephant in the living room. The evidence was right there in his courtroom. Had he declared no need for protection, he would have let off a bomb. His compromise erred on the side of saving the director, rather than serving the best interests of the children. With the same assessment of risk, he could have returned under supervision and saved Josiah.
    In doing a risk assessment one needs to know that human behaviour is predictable. People who are dirty and slovenly and have no work skills and people who have addictions are precdictable in their behaviour. Just as people who have good education, ample income and stable records are predictable. They do not suddenly haul off and batter their babies. In the same way bureaucrats who make dumb decisions are predictable and child protection agencies that are always adversarial are predictable. One judges a family by proven past behaviour and one judges the Fraser Region staff by past behaviour. The judge has been kind to them and he expects them to be sensible. The Baynes have proven their devotion to their children over and over again. The judge noticed it in his judgement. The question now is not whether the Baynes can change their behaviour, but whether or not the director can change his behaviour. Only a moron would deny that the director has been in an adversarial position for years. Can he now knock off the adversary role and provide some token of good faith that he wants to really work with the Bayne to return their children? There really is no other option for hime, because the judge has ruled out a CCO. Thus when the temporary order, or extensions expire, the only option left will be to return the children.

  6. Well Kidsstayathome 9:19 AM
    You expressed yourself effectively enough and yet two statements were unnecessary.
    1. in reference to the judge, "Beyond doubt, he is sleeping with the MCFD."
    2. If you believe that the judge intends to return the Bayne's children, I am afraid this is wishful thinking.

    You can urge readers and the Baynes as well to be realistic, but neither of those statements was wise, considerate or even helpful.

    I advocate public knowledge yet I hope that you can understand why I will discourage a baseless expression to make a point.

  7. The judge may or may not "be sleeping" with MCFD, and I can be as cynical as the rest, but I do firmly believe that if we all work together and put pressure on the appropriate parties, the Bayne's children will be returned to them.

  8. Alright Anon 4:28 PM
    And I am being sincere here.
    "If we all work together and put pressure on the appropriate parties, the Baynes' children will be returned to them."

    Have you given thought to what it means for "us" to work together? What actions and steps are necessary? What would you advise? Who are those parties? What is pressure?

    It is that which I want to pursue in subsequent blogs.

  9. MCFD is in violation of the Canadian Constitution which prohibits detaining citizens without just cause.

    All 4 children, have in fact, been kidnapped and detained and had their civil rights violated.

  10. Jireh8
    You might think you could go the route of the Constitution but the rights of the child as understood by the Ministry preempts that it seems. they have a right to be protected, and when the Ministry 'thinks' that right is threatened, then it can and will intervene and removal of a child is certainly not viewed as kidnapping, as maddening as the act is to onlookers, and is controlled by timeline regulations like temporary care, 3 months etc., but problems arise when the Ministry skillfully ignores these and parents and children suffer unduly, and often for false accusations or misunderstandings. thanks for writing.

  11. The Baynes have demonstrated good instincts and received increasingly valuable advice and growing support.

    MCFD are like police with a difference, they are a Provincial authority. We know virtually nothing about the Surrey office that are currently dealing with the Baynes, such as their past history in dealing with parents. This would be a start.

    The current fellow Matthew Walker is newly assigned. Kim Tran was a temporay. She was registered with the College of Social Workers, the new fellow I do not see. Relevant questions I would ask is how many years experience does he have, what is his current caseload, will he be the one doing a new risk assesment? Ask questions, lots of them. Make sure he sees the family together at a home visit, watch his reactions. Distant? Empathetic?

    The one encounter in January 2010 when Judge Crabtree spoke to me personally, I knew immediately the Baynes should watch their step around this fellow. Often, all it takes is a quick one on one contact with a person before you decide if you proceed with caution, is there an agenda, is there a clear sense of right and wrong, even, does this person attend church.

    The hierarchy needs to be understood first. Who is Matthew's team leader, the Community Service Manager? Is Bruce McNeil still present in this? Who is his boss? It would help if people aware of these names can advise the Baynes on their experiences.

    Ask what services are available, assuming MCFD is not immediately forthcoming with available options? This is the stage for asking endless questions in order to be able to plan ahead.

  12. Matthew Walker - that couldn`t be the notorious Jason Matthew Walker could it!!!!! If so, this whole fiasco is even more outrageous.'s_aid_investigator,_jason_matthew_walker,_arrested!!!wmv

  13. "If we all work together and put pressure on the appropriate parties, the Baynes' children will be returned to them."

    We, meaning the hundreds of people, maybe thousands of people, who have been to this blog and sympathize with the Baynes.

    Appropriate parties, means politicians and media and anyone and everyone else who can make change, including judges. And I know judges are supposed to be detached and not involved, but if they get wind that enough people are fed up with them enforcing what is essentially kidnapping, they will definately find a way to change their decisions.

    Pressure means anything legal - writing letters, getting journalists to write about the Baynes, having protests, sending out letters to key people, or just the public at large and letting them know what their tax dollars are being used for, innovation public relations, etc., etc.

    Support for the Baynes will only grow. MCFD is stupid to think this is going to go away, especially when MCFD makes us, on an ongoing basis, so disgusted with the system. Only a heartless fool, for example, would believe that they were protecting Josiah by tearing him from his parents days after being born, while still in the hospital, while still breastfeeding, while still underweight (less than 4 pounds!).

    And how did they protect him? By promptly getting in what they claim was a car accident!


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