Many commenters contributed yesterday when we learned that there was a further two-day delay before we hear Judge Crabtree's ruling. Understandably we are concerned for Paul and Zabeth and how they are affected by the incessant flow of disappointments and heartaches. Believe me, Judge Crabtree understands what the delay means. He showed courtesy to them during the court case. I cannot for a moment believe that he was unaware of how a further delay would impact these waiting parents. There must have been a good reason. If all he was going to do was permit the Ministry to keep these children, he could have done that in short order last autumn. It would have been a secure judgement. This couple could not afford to appeal. They are financially without resources, yet as we have seen in terms of moral and spiritual support they are wealthy. That was demonstrable during the court case and Crabtree watched that day after day, but never so overtly as last Thursday when fifty or so of you filled the courtroom and stayed all day so Judge Arthur-Leung could know this is not a case to be hastily dispatched.
So, here we are again, looking together with Paul and Zabeth toward TOMORROW. Tomorrow will bring the children home.
 |
| in mommy's arms |
 |
| don't take him away |
In the meantime, I thought that you should be cheered by some glimpses of Paul's and Zabeth's newest joy who is named Josiah. When you see him here, promise me that you will give thanks, and then I will let you become incensed that he too is in foster care because this Ministry continues to distrust and malign and insult two innocent people whose case will yet be celebrative.
 |
| comfy in mommy's arms |
 |
| peaceful Josiah |
You know that it is the expressed view of this blog that Judge Crabtree can make no other decision but to return the children to Paul and Zabeth.
The handling of this case and the mistreatment of these citizens, has been outrageous and the evidence in court revealed that. The Ministry's own empowering Act was not satisfied by the way the rights of these children and these parents have been ignored and compromised.
Tomorrow, at 3:00 PM the verdict is to be released. Watch for it here.
The stress that this must cause parents, the damage it so clearly does to families, society, the justice system as a whole, and all because of false allegations.
ReplyDeleteWe give thanks for Josiah, and the love he has. I don't see how Judge Crabtree can possibly rule against them.
But so many unthinkable things have happened in this case and others.
One can't help but wonder at the height of the deck stacked against the Baynes:
ReplyDelete- Dr. Colbourne diagnoses shaken baby syndrome, yet the court decides SBS is an opinion to be decided by the court, that she cannot be considered an expert in the area.
- The Hoffman's Ministers file a protection report on the boys being thin. Bending over backwards to further malign he Baynes, they later suggested to the RCMP the Paul, Zabeth or both suffered from "Munchausen's by proxy". This would have gone unnotice by the court but Mr. Christie had the forsight to acquire the police transcript that included this accusation. CBC alludes to a motive, the two had competing music business between the two parties.
- The first foster family seemly helpfully claimed Bethany had Glutaric Aciduria, a medical condition that mimics shaken baby symptoms. CBC covered this aspect of the case. However, in Trial Colbourne stated emphatically Bethany suffered no such disease. I wonder if CBC is embarrassed at the implication they have been manipulated. Later postings by foster parents on this blog suggest a firm position the children are victims of abuse.
- The police roughly interrogated the Baynes and their boys. They did not file charges, however they did inflict significant psychological damage, leaving the family with a horrible memory for the rest of their lives.
- The Baynes various first lawyers. Money first, please. Kudos to Mr. Christie, their current lawyer, and exceptionally rare citizen of public conscious.
- MCFD Social workers Humeny and Golbot. Their bogus reports to courts and risk assessment. Police-assisted removal of the boys at a birthday party. Driving 2 hours from Chilliwack to personally announce to Zabeth he was removing Josiah. Enough said. Go get registered with the College of Psychologists guys. Better yet, quit.
- The Attorney General who is guilty of continually authorizing the massive spend to enable MCFD defeat this family. Six or seven figures of expense pays for a lot of child protection effort and social worker salaries. Why is 10% of the legal expenditures yearly for all MCFD external legal agencies being spent on just this one family?
- Finn Jensen. Three days for a final summation? Pulling a trick to prevent a U.S. expert witness from testifying? Endless delays? Knowing about Zabeth's pregnancy in advance of questioning? Ignoring your own advice to return the boys because of lack of evidence?
- MCFD's Fitzsimmons and McNeil. 3-1/2 years. Guilty until proven innocent.
- The Baynes former employers, and potential employers. It is bad for business to have people employed that have a cloud of child abuse suspicion.
- Some of the other doctors involved. A month without a diagnosis on a suffering infant is astounding. What is with BC Children's Hospital? A hint of suspicion of abuse, and these people set against you makes for a very uncomfortable and untrusting situation. Imagine having a Province Wide hospital alert instituted on citizens without a court order when no crime has been committed, to flag social workers of private medical information.
- Media. For the most part helpful at the beginning. But now, the majority seems somewhat conspicuously silent.
- Politicians. Don't bug us, the matter is before the courts.
- MCFD and child protection generally. These people remove first and maybe ask questions later. Reluctant to return. Reluctant with services. Unlimited funds for supervision and lawyers and foster parents for 'clients' who resist them.
I'm sure others can add more.
This is a small sampling of what parents face when accused of child abuse. The fact that true abuse resulting in police charges AND that biological parents is the source is so exceptionally rare, MCFD would never be able to survive if those were all they had to show for their protection efforts.
Comment posts are appearing instantly and are not requiring visual-word verification. Strange.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ron, for your consistent and frequent updates. It's a blessing that the Bayne's have had you for an advocate and voice.
ReplyDeleteIt does my heart good to see photos of Josiah content with his mommy!
ReplyDeleteKeep tabs on ParentalRights.org
ReplyDeleteThere is a case mentioned today (Camreta v. Greene) regarding a child who, eight years ago was pulled out of her school and interrogated for two hours by police and social workers until they got the answer they wanted, that she was abused by her parents.
The lead-in paragraph also applies to the Baynes case (in fact, most child protection cases) which reads: "Today the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Camreta v. Greene, a case out of Oregon about whether or not a minor child has the right to be protected from seizure and interrogation by government officials without a warrant, emergency circumstances, or parental consent."
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BB23B1333-CFF9-49FB-AB01-0966FA2737BD%7D
Hello Anon 8:23 AM
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said..."Comment posts are appearing instantly and are not requiring visual-word verification. Strange." ------ I removed the verification requirement yesterday and may continue that until after the Judge's ruling tomorrow... but I read the comments and will remove anything objectionable.
Thank you again Ron for keeping us updated. I check here daily to see what is happening. We are standing in faith believing God for the release of all four children tomorrow. My God be glorified in the midst of this sorrow.
ReplyDeleteJosiah looks peaceful with his mother. Josiah, even this young, has a sense that all is well in his mother's arms. A picture says a thousand words and here are the pictures. We don't need anyone to interpret the meaning of it as it is self evident..it is a picture of a mother loving her child and her child you can tell is comforted.
ReplyDeleteI would think that is a wise assumption of Judge Crabtree. I would take that as a sign that he isn't rushing judgement for wanting to ensure he reads over everything for each time we may pick up something important that was missed or forgotten. I agree he could have already made a decision and that it is a great sign even if not a definitive one. I would agree he really does understand and seems caring and that God is bringing them home!! You have thousands on your side rooting for you.
May all the Bayne children grow up with their good and loving parents, where they belong.
ReplyDeleteTo the one who had these words "The stress that this must cause parents, the damage it so clearly does to families, society, the justice system as a whole, and all because of false allegations".
ReplyDeleteI have been through this. There is so much pain that even when it's over--after the relief or getting your child(ren)-- you still feel like a victim. You are forever scarred and scared..it was the most traumatic thing in the world and no one deserves it!
It is the reason I try to help people and I cry most of the times I post but I post anyway hoping someone will listen to an innocent survivor. I lost a child that was ill then lost the other as the Baynes have. Our child was returned and there are so many we are thankful for but it hurts to know someone else is feeling as you once did.
Each day I read this post I relive the nightmare and I didnt deserve it and the Baynes do not deserve it. Return their children as this is the closest thing to an apology and the only next right thing to do.
Thank you, Anon 4:04pm, for your courage in reading and posting and feeling the pain all over again. I do not have your experience, but I cannot help but think it is more common than I once thought--having now read of the injustices experienced by the Baynes, and having read comments of others such as yourself. It causes me to want to do something to help. I have written some letters to start with (and will keep writing), and we'll see what else comes of the future. I wish for you much joy and hope for the future, to replace so much pain from the past.
ReplyDeleteUNFIT FOR PURPOSE
ReplyDeleteBritain gets regular child welfare scandals. Most of them are due to leaving children in obviously dangerous situations and rationalising inaction. Following one of these episodes a local child welfare authority came under fire and a judge was given the job of making a judicial inquiry into the agency. He concluded that the authority was "not fit for purpose."
NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. Concise, direct and says everything. If I said that the Fraser Region is "not fit for purpose", I am sure that most of the thousands of readers of this blog would heartily agree. If I took it a step further and noted that the Fraser director has been supported all the way by minister and deputy minister and I concluded that this made the whole children's ministry "Not fit for Purpose", that most readers would concur.
The ministry has been unfit for purpose for many years and that is why we have had the Gove Inquiry and the Hughes Inquiry. The Gove report made things a whole lot worse and turned the new ministry into the ministry of chaos and frustration. At the same time the new Child Family and Community Service Act became a wrecking ball to smash anything that was left intact. Judge Hughes' recommendations really changed nothing. All he left us was a toothless watchdog. Gove and Hughes could have made some changes, but they did not really understand what they were dealing with. The reports of both judges were far too polite and the recommendatins far to timid to have any effect.Let us tinker with the structure and the administration, but we won't get into the real guts of things.
I will conclude with one thought. I have often written the the system can only work if the staff have profound personal qualities. They must have intelligence, integrity, compassion and courage. Eventually they will learn wisdom. I ask the readers. Have any of you seen any actual evidence of these qualities in the Fraser staff? If they have any of these things, why do they not give us evidence that they exist? I suggest that this is where the next inquiry should start and let us hear how we can ensure these qualities in future.See you all tomorrow.
I have heard that it is more painful to lose a child to child protection authorities and the system than to lose one to death; this, at least is the experience of one set of parents. I can see why this would be true, because with a natural death you can at least be sure that your child is no longer suffering, and you can eventually think of the happy times you had together. But when a parent loses their child to the system, how can they ever be at peace? They would be worrying constantly about whether the child was suffering in foster care, or if they had ended up on the street, like so many of these kids seem to do.
ReplyDeleteI can't see how Judge Crabtree can do anything but return the Bayne's children. If for some reason he does not, I think there will be an outcry such as this province has never seen, and that something will be done to return the children to their rightful parents. More and more people are learning about what happened to the Baynes, and they won't rest until the family is together.
Anon at March 1, 2011 4:04 PM:
ReplyDeleteI am very sorry you have had to go through such suffering, and thank you so much for speaking out. Your words give comfort, I am certain, to those who have been victims of MCFD, and they also serve to educate those who are lucky enough to have escaped MCFD injustice.
In case the Baynes do not get their children back tomorrow and need to do an appeal, here is the same website system that ParentalRights.org uses
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nonprofitoffice.com/
Definately worth checking out. See also their FAQs, as it looks like the cost is far less than you might imagine.
The court is indeed blind, so it is asked to "imagine" the worst.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about as much about facts more than it is probabilities on the negative, giving MCFD a huge benefit of the doubt. There is no way to emphasize the positive. Parents do not get any benefit of a doubt. The courts do not read blogs, they do not look at pictures, neither do they associate personally with either party. Courts do not respond to public pressure either. Judges are appointed, not voted in, so they are supposedly immune from outside pressure.
In court, tears, pauses, impressions, guilty looks, emotions are not recorded on transcripts. Neither should they, for this would spawn "acting" for courts. (It is bad enough now in FRA proceedings where a crying spouse can elicit sympathy from a judge, who will then cherry-pick through evidence to weigh a decision accordingly.)
For most parents, being in child protection court almost like being in a different country and not knowing the customs of the land. For most parents the only defence is outside the courtroom, and that is to take all the parenting courses and assessments, and "cooperate."
In the Baynes case, photos and videos were not viewed in court (except some photos of bruises on the children while in care). There was no time for witnesses that could have given personal references, no time left even for Paul or the grandparents. MCFD defense was most artful in manufacturing the largest possible advantage. This is perfectly allowable strategy. Unfortunately. MCFD gambled correctly the Baynes would not respond in kind by rolling out another 2-4 weeks worth of witnesses.
CCO Parents take note: if the Baynes lose, make sure YOUR case takes 8 weeks of court time spanning 3 or 6 years. At least during this time you will see your children and have all childcare expenses paid. Make MCFD legal costs double and triple.
An Appeal by the Baynes, assuming an error in law is identified, is likely out of reach because of the cost of transcripts and locating suitable extracts. This cost can't be avoided even if you chose to handle the task yourself without a lawyer. Seven day's of transcripts costs nearly $6,000. Multiply that by three for the Baynes case, so $20,000. This is not a criminal case, so this cost is not free. Criminals appeal for free and do not have to worry about such costs. They have charter rights protection, families do not.
If the children go free, the Ministry likely won't appeal, they would just re-apprehend. It's cheaper and faster. With a re-removal, the matter just goes before another judge.
If you imagine the logic of removing all children based in concerns about one child, ordering the return of the three children and leaving Josiah in care, MCFD's circular logic would demand the retention of the other three children until matters with Josiah are resolved. I am hoping against hope that MCFD has just painted themselves into a corner, and at some point there will be a real fear of public opinion and political backlash.
That said, given the fact the Rahman family lost their children to a Provincial CCO decision in an SBS case that was worse and longer than the Baynes, they were successful on appeal to the BC Supreme Court. I don't believe MCFD objected after this point.
The Rahmans were well funded, and they used a large law firm, lklaw.ca. Robert Hamilton won an Appeal for them. He used to do quite a few MCFD cases in the past (all his cases are published on the website). He also does training for MCFD social workers teaching them the CFCSA. (You will note his name alongside Dr. Colbourne, Somers & Co and the Kinsmens Law firm in a Continuing Legal Education website. BC Child Protection is a small world.)
The state of child protection law took dozens of years to get to this point. Lets hope it does not take dozens more years and many more cases like the Baynes to undo the damage.
Anon 8:52 PM March 1
ReplyDeleteMy thanks to you for this well written insightful analysis of the way things are. While some of what you describe is frightening, it is a dose of reality that must be heard.
I have just now heard of this story and my heart is broken for this family. I don't think there is a greater fear you can have in your family than what is happening to them right now. This seems completely like a malicious attack and a battle of wills on the part of "child services." This has zero benefit for those children, particularly that baby. It is outrageous to think this is happening in Canada! We are praying.
ReplyDeleteAnon at March 1, 2011 11:48 PM:
ReplyDeleteYes, this would be the worst thing to happen to a person, a family, a child. Yet, even though it is so devastating, families are destroyed all the time on the basis of false allegations and false affidavits and co-erced "confessions" of "abuse" from little children.
For more information go to ParentalRights.org, where you will find lawsuits highlighting the abuses of CPS. You will also see how very capable and credible people are working together to fight for the rights of parents.
ParentalRights.
Also worth reading:
"6-year-old committed to psych ward against mom's wishes"
http://moms.today.com/_news/2011/02/15/6058506-6-year-old-committed-to-psych-ward-against-moms-wishes
Even if the family is finally reunited they will never be the same; the kids have been forever emotionally damaged from the separation from their parents and a huge psychological re-adjustment will be required; the damage has already been done,and will they even remember their parents? This is so tragic and wrong on so many levels. I would normally post using my name but I fear the authorities may see this and come after my family too for speaking out!
ReplyDeleteSo eagarly waiting the result....Mr. Unruh thank you for following the story in this format. May your hand in this give glory to God.
ReplyDelete"Even if they are reunited the will never be the same" - how true, however they will have the chance to heal with one another as opposed to living in permanent "limbo" (oxymoron?)
ReplyDeleteAt their age, I am sure they will remember their parents, plus don't they have visitation rights. God can also do mighty acts of healing and restoration. We are living proof and so is our son. The scars are there but we also appreciate each moment so much. :-)