Thursday, March 3, 2011

IN THE HANDS OF THE PARENTS / Part 466 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Debriefing Judge Crabtree's Ruling Released March 2, 2011
My first of numerous Synopses (Judge Crabtree's actual wording is in quotations. Everything else is my understanding of the statements for the ruling.)

  one of the last clauses of the ruling was...
[256]  "As s. 2 of the Act provides, the family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the children, but children are entitled to be protected from abuse and neglect and this must be the overriding concern of the Court. The opportunity is now in the hands of the parents. The children are in need of protection. Now is the time to move beyond this question and to take the appropriate steps to address and remedy the situation to satisfy the Court that the children should be returned to their care and custody."
As for the [256] clause from the ruling...a very important paragraph in my mind.

As for the [256] clause from the ruling...a very important paragraph in my mind. There is no easy way to tell you what this means for the Baynes, so I will just tell it the way I believe it is. Based upon what he heard in court, the judge (the Court) has not been satisfied that the children should be returned to the care and custody of the parents, at least not yet, but he is willing to be satisfied and in fact, he has made a ruling which opens a tiny window of opportunity for the parents to do what is necessary to address and to remedy the situation, the situation being the court's lack of confidence in the Baynes. Then the question is, what must Paul and Zabeth do to convince the judge that they should have their children returned to them? Since the Baynes' performance, behaviour, compliance or accountability is not before the Judge but rather before the MCFD Director or his employees, it strikes me as most probable and even essential that for the next six months, the Baynes will have to do anything and everything that the MCFD expects and or demands, and then, perhaps, perhaps, the Director may have a change of mind about the Baynes to say, let us give the Baynes another chance, or a chance with these conditions, or a chance with supervision. And the Judge is willing to grant this he infers, since as he underscored, "the family is the preferred environment." Nevertheless, with regard to the children's need for protection the judge is unequivocal. They need it, but he says, now, is the time to move beyond this question, which is this one. Is protection needed? To this the judge then quickly says in that paragraph, "the opportunity is in the hands of the parents." It means that the Baynes, if they ever want to have their children, can only make the decision to comply with MCFD and hope for the best, or, remain in a combative contest and be assured of never seeing their children at home. The latter case of course, will predictably result in six months time with the MCFD application to have a true CCO never to be contested again. But it doesn't need to happen if Paul and Zabeth begin a 6 month campaign to make MCFD's Fraser Region Director content with their efforts to become model A parental candidates. Yet, if we live in the land of fair play and justice, shouldn't the Baynes at the same time be permitted to appeal the judge's decision and this not reflect negatively upon them? If they are seeking to demonstrate good parenting potential and also to convince the court that they have been misjudged, shouldn't that be permissable where we live?

It is too early for me to determine whether this is even reasonable. Six months more of foster home life on the lives of each of these children is not the issue, but most critically the confusing unsettledness of being moved back and forth each week for nine hours of visitation with Mommy and Daddy. Six months more and the MCFD may opt to conclude that it has already been four years away from the parents, so why try now to restore that family now.

I am still rocked by the decision and so very sorry for Zabeth and Paul. They are back in court this morning with respect to Josiah and his custody. Yesterday's ruling assures us that the judge presiding will conclude protection is required.


  1. What I don't get is if the "shaken baby" theory was proved to be false then why the hold up in returning the children? Obviously they do not need "protection." I bet even if and once they are returned it will still not be the end of it; the child welfare will still want to oppress and monitor them for years; they will never truly be free.They should move out of the province where they can't track them. I don't know how they can endure this, and for 4 years and no hope for the future or any step closer; if it were me I likely would have committed suicide.

  2. If and when the children are removed the family should just flee the jurisdiction and live a life free of MCFD intrusion,suppression supervision, harassment and fear.My heart simply aches for this innocent family and makes me afraid to have kids of my own, for fear the government can one day just take them away for no reason at all.

  3. We are saddened to hear the judge's decision but not surprised. The judge will absolutely support the system except in a case where there is a charge that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is very subjective and involves the authority of the MCFD.
    We are saddened but not surprised to read the hateful, personal attacks under the comments last night. Every day people choose how to live amongst the rest of people and some days, the choice button we push is despicable. The parlor of doubt about what they have done lays everywhere. The suggestion that there is something not disclosed is in the air. It is nothing less than the smoke of the original suspicions still lingering. We haven't read the decision to know what this about but presumably, we will be able to under freedom of information laws.
    However, at this juncture, we believe the decision is about supporting the authority of gov't, and MCFD and their right to demand whatever they choose from the population. Don't be surprised. The judge showed it all when he questioned about last chance at the court sessions. We are sorry for the Baynes but further grieved for the state of law and gov't in Canada.

  4. This 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.

    We 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.

  5. Ron--
    Wondering if you could put a "donate here" post that stays up on the right sidebar of this blog?

  6. Heather, thanks for the idea. I will give this some thot and as the time permits, see what can be done to expedite that donation option. Ron

  7. When the ruling was made public last night I was just heart-sick for this family – kids, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, all of them! We were all so sure that this excruciating nightmare would finally be at an end.

    From the moment I first heard what was happening with the Bayne’s I have admired them. I have supported & championed their campaign “for love & justice.” I have seen them as having the faith & strength I don’t think I have – I admit I think I would have admitted to a lie if faced with loosing my children.

    I have viewed them as being so right as to fight for such a noble cause – their battle has been on behalf of not just themselves but for all of us. They are fighting a great evil that exists in our communities, countries & the world at large.

    I have rejoiced in the small blessings & victories & wept over the delays & setbacks. I rejoiced that God raised up such a strong couple to take up this battle.

    I have experienced hope that a great wrong was about to be righted & a glorious revolution of change was about to begin. I had that hope in spite of my own scary & negative experiences.

    Something has shifted in me with this ruling.
    Admittedly maybe it is still the shock – I am still feeling numbed, deflated & defeated. What a chilling reminder of how little control we really have.

    Yesterday I took some time & re-looked at some of their family photos from before this nightmare started. There are smiling faces, twinkles in eyes – signs of love, joy & happiness that kids just can’t pretend. I do NOT for one moment believe that these children need protection from their family!

    But, I read comments advising to keep fighting, for the first time in a long time, instead of hope I feel a icy chill run to my core. I DON’T want them to fight anymore! I don’t want them to keep nobly battling on principle! I WANT them to be a family!

    In 6 months time, they could finally be a family, or, it could be stretched out again … lets face it, this could carry on until the kids are old enough to enforce their own choices - & there are many scary stories of what may happen before then.

    Dear Zabeth & Paul, whatever you do from here, keep fighting or bow to their demands, neither choice is easy & neither path will be a ‘walk in the park.’ Whatever you decide to do, you have my best hopes & prayers & whatever support I can give.

  8. I would like to echo for myself what Anon 8:46pm just said:

    "Dear Zabeth & Paul, whatever you do from here, keep fighting or bow to their demands, neither choice is easy & neither path will be a ‘walk in the park.’ Whatever you decide to do, you have my best hopes & prayers & whatever support I can give."

  9. I am so very sorry for this loss and had high expectations for last night's ruling. I pray that these next six months will see all the Bayne children returned permanently to their parents.
    It seems to me however that the ruling was decisive in that the ideal is for the children to be placed with their parents BUT that the MCFD will not be taken down. Perhaps it is time to STOP fighting the ministry and work with them to see their children returned as soon as possible.
    Trust that the Lord is our great advocate and the truth will come to light in His great timing. He has a way of shinning light in dark places that we could never have worked ourselves.

  10. The judge had a hard decision to make from his set of eyes. Sometimes I feel they think if they returned a child so easliy and a child was hurt in the future it would be their fault. By allowing 6 months of the Baynes complying with their "standards and processes" this gives the judge more support for his decision to return the children as well as it allows 6 months for the attention on the case to die down a little. I feel in 6 months they can have their children back and that he is allowing that window is a great sign, albeit a let down from us that know the Baynes and their case and know they deserve them returned now.

  11. The judge has had plenty of time to see that the Baynes are no threat whatsoever to their children. This six months is just to buy time, in order to do what the Ministry wants, which is take the children, forever. Don't be conned, yet again. This was a truly corrupt ruling, don't expect it to somehow result in returned children. The only way to deal with this is appeal. And the only way to appeal is to raise funds.

    Why on earth would the Ministry return the children in 6 months? Think about it. They have zero incentive to do so. The only way these bullies are going to return the children is if they are forced to by a higher court.

  12. I'm very new to this story and am absolutely horrified as to what is happening to this family. Please set up something so we can donate.

    I am confused on one part: it sounds like the Baynes have not gone along with certain requests made by the MCFD on the principle that doing so would indicate guilt. Not going along with those things has stretched out the case.

    Sometimes when slavery has been placed upon a people group (stealing children away took place in the US with black slaves and in Canada with our First Nations people... sick that it's still going on and we know how horrid the effects were on entire people groups) they must weigh out some pros and cons because the situation itself does not allow for a clear right due to all the corruption.

    Those children need to be at home. Not one person would look less at the Baynes if they "caved" and went along with requests for courses, etc. Those children will not necessarily be seeing the "cause" but the lack of their mommy and daddy and that needs to be righted. You are not giving in to the system but admitting that the slave holders hold guns and dogs, and that you are beaten, starved and have little choice.

    My heart is completely broken for this family.

  13. How much more corruption do we have to witness before we final realize what this Ministry is all about?

    This all reminds me of the people who kept giving Hitler chances, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'm not saying MCFD is Hitler - heaven forbid we make that comparison. What I am saying is this: there is a huge price to pay for giving evil the benefit of the doubt.

  14. There should be at this point in the process be an impartial 3rd party to oversee the next 6 months of complying with 'standards and processes'. What hope do we have that the MCFD will not simply make the requirements impossible for any parent to meet??

    If any of us were given 9 hours a week to parent our children (a mere 11% of our children's weekly waking hours or 5% of total hours) and observed intently during those 9 hours only by the organization desirous of permanent custody of our children (and fighting us in court), we all would fail as well. Especially since at that point our children would be losing faith in any adult, including us who were charged as parents at birth with the task of protecting them. There is no way in those circumstances that any of us would truly be able to comply with the organization's requirements.

  15. I cannot believe that as long as the decision rests in the hands of the MCFD director that justice will be served or the children returned.

    If the Baynes must do everything the MCFD asks of them, would that not include an admission of guilt? Haven't they been asking for an admission since the beginning? And who would believe an admission were it to come at this point? It seems to me the judge has created an impossible task for the Baynes to fulfill and provides the Ministry what it needs to achieve its sorrowful end. Who knew the night would last this long?

    We do however have a higher court we can appeal to and I encourage all of us to do so on our knees daily. Our heavenly Father did not give those children to the Ministry, He gave them to Paul and Zabeth. He provides Hope where there is no visible Hope.

    I know there are no words which can provide peace at this devastating time, so only know I will continue to pray restoration over you and your family and that the final outcome still rests in His loving hands.

  16. I have just started following the bayne blog. I am tryng to wade through teh vast amount of information on the blog. I have difficulty justifying how two bayne children sustained fractures at a young age. I think that one time could be an accident but twice sheds somc doubt on the case. my cousin's kid fell of teh change table and broke his leg, he was never taken by MCFD and this leads me to belive that the MCFD must have other informatio that leads them to think that the children are unsafe. I truly do feel bad for the Bayne's if this is not the case but I do not hink our government would withhold children for their parents without data to support that.

  17. I don't think anyone could ever "pass" or meet the unreasonable "standards" child welfare demands as no one is the "perfect" parent.That being said, why does the judge feel they have to wait 6 months for the children to possibly be returned? They have already been in foster care this long; if the shaken baby "defense" is doubtful why didn't he just return them now? Hasn't it already been long enough? What is he waiting for?The longer this drags on the worse damage it causes the children and the parents.

  18. I don't mean to be rude or derogatory but 11:11 if you don't think our government would do something like this then I think you need to do a bit of research. Sadly, I'm afraid you will be shocked by what you find.

  19. Ron,

    I know you are busy working to present us all with a summary of the ruling, but it would seem that perhaps a factual recap of the entire saga would be desirable. I say this because of comments such as Anonymous March 3, 2011 11:11 AM, who again questions facts that have been answered before. To this Anonymous I say -- The outcome to the situation you presented could have been much different if "someone", had previously or concurrently made a "referral" to MCFD. I say "someone" because a Foster Parent seems to think that "good community people" were involved in this case. The "good" people don't appear so good after a quick internet search and this doesn't even involve other information I have seen that is not readily available online. The point is, not everyone makes calls to MCFD for strictly noble reasons. Finally Foster Parent, we are not saying that MCFD does no good work at all. What we are saying is that they should stop hurting innocent people and actually help the children that need their help. MCFD routinely leaves children in terrible situations. Lawyers will routinely joke -- "If you want your kids back, tell MCFD to keep them." I wonder how that joke got started?

  20. Could you tell me why the children are not placed with relatives? Thanks:)

  21. I do not know specifically about the MCFD but I have heard over my years (41) truly horrible stories about various children in province-approved foster care who were neglected and abused in all ways possible in not one but many foster homes. I have heard of children who were taken from loving foster families and given back to negligent (at least if not worse) parents because they had gotten out of jail and received their "parental rights" back. There was no transition, precious little follow up and they children were not allowed any contact with the foster family that they had grown to love. The foster family willingly gave up custody - it wasn't a fight, but they were only allowed or given one phone call with the kids later. That took place in a different province. MCFD's first reaction may have been for the safety of the children but 3.5 years later after all that they have heard in court and observed of this family ... its quite obvious they have a different agenda than safety of children or they really are incapable of assessing risk and danger to children.
    Our government is quite capable of neglect... and mistakes because it is made of people. I also taught a student who was majorly neglected, but the police and Family services could not intervene because there was not "enough evidence" - the school reported that the child was not fed for days at a time and illegal activities were carried out in the parent's home every day.
    Furthermore, Law, of the sort that is argued in courts is also most often quite distinct and/or removed from issues of true justice. Its more about which lawyers can argue which articles the best. So in that regard, your last statement about needing "data" is likely accurate - MCFD has "data" with which they continue to keep the children from their rightful parents. "Data" can be spun or manipulated into a variety of required shapes. Court law is also sometimes (or a lot? I am not a lawyer so I'm not sure) about following or breaking precedents - again not really connected to an inner or core sense of right and wrong, justice, fairness, love or plain old good sense.
    To the Baynes: Thank our God this world is not our home. May He show miraculous and glorious mercy. May He Lay a Table in the Presence of Your Enemies For His Own Name's Sake.

  22. Anon @ March 3, 2011 11:11 AM:

    Do you ever read the news?

    Here are just three links which demonstrate that the government, medical professionals, and other employees who claim to protect children, are not the trustworthy parties you seem to think they are:

    "Dr. Charles Smith"


    Phoney B.C. doctor Jason Walker avoids jail time, in part due to "well deserved" public scorn
    Walker’s “well-deserved” public scorn among reasons judge rejected a stiffer sentence (another corrupt judge protecting the destroyers of children - Jason Walker definately deserved jail time, but BC judges and judges everywhere, are becoming more corrupt all the time)

  23. In reference to the question of why the Baynes have not participated in a Parenting Capacity Assessment:

    Another poster responded to my question by stating that a PCA is expensive. When a child is in MCFD custody, it is almost always MCFD who initiates the PCA process. When the custodial status is a result of a dispute between the Ministry and the Parents, MCFD pays for the cost of a PCA (in almost all cases). It is rare that the cost for a PCA is borne by the parents.

  24. Regardless of the judges outcome, lets remember that each one of the first three childen, Kent, Baden and Bethany, ALL three of them had something physical happen to them at the beginning of their lives. now, there is another little one born under weight yet again. the difference is that he can grow safely for at least six months.

  25. For those of you who think that this family should just cave and just do what this ministry what’s them to do. Let’s see if these are things that you would do. She admits guilt to something she hasn’t done. They tell her husband that she is not aloud to be around the children. He can have the children in his home but she isn’t aloud to be there 24/7. She now could go to jail for something she hasn’t done. While there she’s harassed and abused by other women for something she hasn’t done. Then to get out years later for the Ministry to tell Paul that he has to divorce Zabeth if he wants to be able to keep the kids in his care. The children are no longer able to see their mother as she has admitted guilt for doing something she hasn’t done. Then she is no longer able to give piano lessons to children. Isn’t that her passion to teach children especially her own.
    Is this something you're willing to do? Would you want a life like this? Would you divorce your spouse? All for something you/she didn't do?
    Really people if she admits to something she hasn’t done she is screwed look at all the parents, caretakers and uncles lives that were messed up by Charles Smith’s lies when they caved for lesser sentences. Just to get it over with and not drag it out. Where are they today because they went along with it to make it easier.
    This 6 month thing with the Ministry is a deal with the devil. If she doesn’t admit to it in the next 6 months they lose their children if she does admit to it she loses her children. That is exactly how caulis this Ministry is and the Judge is sitting back and allowing this to happen. Something drastic needs to be done to get these children back into their care. What I’m not really sure but something needs to be done or they can kiss these children good-bye until MCFD puts their butts out on the sidewalk at 18. Not something I really wanted to say but its going to be true if things don’t change soon and if the people in BC and Canada don’t stand up and fight for this family like they have never fought before because this isn’t just about the Bayne family its about this generation, the next and then several in the years to come. Which means your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

  26. To Anon 1:24 PM,
    that is slanderous my friend.

    Certainly Baden and Bethany has incidents that required investigation. The file was closed after Baden's situation was dismissed following the doctor's finding of ostopenia of prematurity. The judge did not accept either shaken baby or the defence suggestions including a condition attributable to prematurity with respect to Bethany because he was unconvinced either way. Josiah too is slightly premature, not because Zabeth did not do everything humanly possible to carry the baby to term. And if any there is fragility associated with his development, it will not be foster parents' fault either.

  27. I am impressed at how quickly today's bloggers put their finger on the essential flaws in the judgement. It is seriously flawed and could not withdstand appeal. The judge made sure that he gave the ministry endless rope in court and this led me to believe that he was making sure that he could not be appealed should he rule against the ministry. However, he did not take the same care with the Bayne side. He probably knew they could not afford to appeal.
    Appeal is not simple. The appeal court is not going to say "You done wrong--give back the kids." If they disagree with the ruling, they can refer it back to the judge to reconsider his ruling, or they can order a new trial. That would be a bigger disaster for the kids than the status quo. Would probably take two more years. When the judicial system screws you they do a proper job of it.
    I think that it is obvious that the decision was made for the sake of pure political expedience and had nothing to do with the best interests of the children. Imagine what would have happened if he had simply returned the kids. The media firestorm would have consumed the director the minister and her deputy. It would have caused another major scandal and poiitical fallout. The decision was gutless and merciless. I think he could not make up his mind for a long time and hence the delays.
    His ruling options were the same as a judge who was making the first ruling after a protection hearing was concluded. The fact that they had taken over three years to get there did not change that.(That is a flaw in the law and not in the judiciary.) He could have made a temporary order of not more than three months. He could return the children outright or under supervision. This would have been a reasonable face saver. What he did was to chicken right out. His other option was to make a continuing care order. There is no provision in the act that I can find for provisional CCO. For a CCO the evidence must be clear and compelling and show that the parents are so unfit that they can never have care of a child again. We all know that in the Bayne case that would merely the droppings of one of the bovine species. (that should get by Ron.) He sat on the fence these parents are forever unfit--sorta. He could have made a temp order and extended it after three months and there would be a mandatory and it would expire without re-application. Giving them six months to show they are fit parents? What in hell does he think they have done for three years or more? Providing evidence that they keep all visitations, attend all hearings. Work nights to leave days free for access and keep up a nice home. The home that the social workers never bothered to visit.
    I have not yet read the judgement, because I had a very bad night and I had to go out this morning. I am sure that many of you slept badly.When I have studied the judgement I will get back on the blog, because it may be of help in other shaken baby cases.

  28. 11:11 you are right. There is proof of fractures for Baden and for Bethany. Badens they will tell you is a result of osteopaenia as a result of being born premature. However, if this is the case would they not treat him very carefully so as not to break his bones? And as far as Bethany, her arm was fractured. I saw her x ray. She was not severely preemie (34+ weeks) And even if she was, knowing how fragile Baden was you would think they would handle Bethany very carefully as well. Because Osteopaenia or not, bones do not just break on their own!
    The Ministry was watching the Bayne family before Bethany was so severely injured. Maybe they should have stepped in earlier, might have saved Bethy from lifelong handicaps.

  29. 38 weeks is absolutley NOT considered premature, there is a deeper issue there. It is obvious.

  30. For Anon 1:32 PM
    You have a vivid imagination. I am glad that you are not a licenced prognosticator for their future. But you are making a point, that the battle is uphill. And you do speak to a broadening concern that child care and protection must be made as fair and effective and non intrusive as possible while keeping children safe.

  31. To Ray Ferris...Here/here! You nailed it!

    And to those of you on the other side of this...use your imaginations!

    Paul and Zabeth...stay STRONG! People all over the world have your backs. We love you and we are here for you. In prayer and support, whatever that means.

  32. I stand by the fact that there was a history in this family prior to Bethany's injuries. One incident is an accident; when we see patterns it becomes suspicious and likely not just accidents. She had a fractured femur which was not explained through the older brother's fall.

    As a society we have the responsibility to protect the young. There is a history of fractures in infancy and these never occured again for Bethany after leaving the Bayne home. If she was that osteopenic she would have had further fractures in the foster home.

  33. What did the judge say today about Josiah? There are no postings up about it.

  34. Like it or not there is a history that goes very noticed. In Badens case , did the doctor not want to recant her statemant? One broken bone could easily be an acident, but two and no hospital record of them ? And then theres the fantasy fall that poor Bayden got blamed for.And now if when hes an adult he finds out that he was blamed for it....... think of the guilt he will feel. As far as the new baby goes ... well i dont think that 38 weeks is premature to the point of disabilities. If it is a medical condition that the doctor is missing, then get another doctor. But we all know that something happened to Bethany. And now that there is a ruling, the Baynes are being told by the court to do what the ministry wanted them to do in the first place, instead of listening to the on lookers.

  35. Ron I have to chip in again. I read every medical report and interpretation and I read the total prosecution transcript. As a man who removed over a thousand children in my protection days, I would not support the Baynes if I did not think that they were very caring parents who had the misfortune to have premmies. Baden was born 15 weeks premature and had to be in hospital for three months. He was so fragile that the parents had special training for putting him a car seat. Even careful parents could accientally injure him.
    Bethany was born six weeks premmie and not 2 weeks. Having read all the biomechanical reports they stress how easily any newborn can get a subdural haematoma from a light knock. There is no dispute that Bethany received an injury. The only question was it accidental or not. All the ten defence medical experts said it was consistent with a sibling falling on him. By the way the Paediatrician failed to notice the skull injury on her first examination. It was slight but the skull distended and enlarged it because of the undetected bleeding. The fractured femur was accurately dated by the radiologist and it coincided with a date when Bethany was in hospital and being forcibly strapped down for radiology. As doctor after doctor said, if there is a reasonable explanation accept it. Accidental injuries are common.Non accidental injuries are rare. So those who comment skeptically, please give the supporters a little credit for knowing what we are talking about. When I was a protection worker I would have been delighted to have such an easy case as the Baynes.

  36. Thank so much for chipping in, Ray Ferris. Great detailed info.

    I think I would add my voice to those who would be happy to see a more static web-feel to all the info found in this blog. It would make accessing facts easier. That said, I realize it is a lot of work, and I'm not sure of other implications I may not be considering. And I'm aware that Ron Unrau has no doubt already put many many hours into supporting the Baynes. If it is deemed a good idea, perhaps someone proficient in web design can step forward to do this for Ron?

  37. Is there any possible way the family can appeal?
    It is terrifying that they use the "magic" words "child protection" and suddenly parents have no rights(legal or otherwise) or privacy;that it all instantly vanishes, and that without a warrant or proof(just mere accusation and suspicion)the authorities can march into your home and seize your children. NO ONE is safe!God help us!

  38. Ye shall know them by their fruits - The Saviour gives the proper test of their character.

    Sexual abuse at Richmond foster home raises concerns
    The B.C. NDP is demanding to know how a former male prostitute became an overnight careworker in a Richmond foster home and then ended up sexually abusing a disabled teen, without the government stepping in.

  39. A Summary Response to Today's Comments:

    5:27 AM - Moving out of the province is not a solution since MCFD could be court ordered to recover children anywhere, and suicide doesn't seem the recommended remedy either.
    7:01 AM – Judge Crabtree's query about last chance rulings was indeed a clue.
    8:27 AM – Your suggestion about rallying supportive people to organize may have some merit but it may not be advisable for Baynes not to comply with Ministry and simply to Fight Back.
    Heather 8:39 AM – Some advocates are presently considering ways to make donating easier or to raise funds – news will follow at some point
    Anon 8:46 AM – yes there are admirable features about the Baynes and the way they have carried themselves thru the ordeal as well as the proactive measures they are taking to raise awareness of misdiagnoses. And we do trust that they can yet be a family.
    Melanie 9:23 AM – you are the first or the only one to recommend to the Baynes to cooperate with MCFD.
    Anon 9:54 AM – we all trust that a 6 month window is a good omen, an opportunity
    Anon 10:03 AM – you obviously disagree and don not believe MCFD will reconsider
    Anon 10:04 AM – did Baynes not cooperate? Well they couldn't and didn't confess harming their child. That seemed to impede the relationship with MCFD.
    Anon 10:47 AM – We have no idea whether MCFD will make the requirements of cooperation next to impossible, but a letter from the Baynes has already requested those expectations.
    Anon 11:04 AM – Many will listen to your call to prayer
    Anon 11:11 AM – you wonder whether MCFD has info that is convincing that the Baynes are a risk and I am hoping to condense Crabtree's ruling so you will see that no such cache exists and he made his ruling based on the slimmest of risk possibilities.
    Anon 11:40 AM – yes this additional time is damaging for the children
    CPE 12:05 PM - if I can provide a recap of the sage I will
    Beck 12:20 PM – both boys started out with maternal grandparents in 2008 and then MCFD removed them saying they couldn't be adequately protected there. MCFD has simply never reconsidered the Foster Home provision.
    Anon 1:32 PM – sure there are horror stories about foster care, but fortunately the children are in a reportedly good place now.
    3:18 PM - Today we know Josiah will stay in care until another date for a presentation hearing. hat did the judge say today about Josiah?

  40. I don't know how anyone could possibly think the Ministry is considering giving back these children in six months. The six months is merely so the judge can let himself off the hook (he knows if he said the children are permanent wards of the state there would be too much flack - he's gutless, so he pretends there is hope with this sick, corrupt Ministry).

    Look what MCFD has done so far to this family! They have behaved in such a cruel, unjust fashion. Why would anyone think they will suddenly change their minds and give the children back. They see the Baynes as the enemy, because the Baynes have - through their courageous battle - helped expose MCFD to the world for what they are - sick bullies. MCFD wants revenge, and being the sadistic bullies they are, they know the best revenge, the most horrible torture, is not only to take the children, but to drag out the torture, to give a little bit of hope.

    The only way to deal with this is to pump up the volume in terms of media exposure, and at the same time, appeal. I am almost certain that there are people willing to organize and fundraise, and work with the media.

    And I bet Doug Christie would be willing to do an appeal too, if he gets funded, which as I stated, is a strong possibility. Why don't we ask him how much he could run an appeal for? Then start doing a progress meter. We only have so much time to do this, the clock is ticking.

    The Baynes of course have to agree, but I think if they confer with their legal counsel, there is a good chance he (Doug Christie) will agree there is no way the Ministry will ever give the children back without a court order. Why would they? They want to send a message to every parent in BC for all history: "don't EVER go to the media - if you do, you will NEVER have any hope of seeing ANY of your children again."

    The one thing all child protection gangs around the world fear and despise is this: public exposure. It's like the wicked witch getting water poured on her. It freaks them out. They can't stand the light of day, they can't handle the truth. And they will severely punish anyone who dares to use that weapon against them.

    I open to arguments as to why I am wrong, but so far I haven't heard one that I find compelling.


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